North Korea will pre-emptively nuke the US

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Diablo1099:
Think the US gives South Korea some Drones, that'd be the end of that.
I mean, set up a control panel in a Internet Cafe, Tell them it's a Video Game, Problem Solved.
/jk

OT: Question: Dose the US Military have Tactical EMP Bursts? You know how a Nuke goes off, it fries all computers and such within a certain radius? Did they ever make anything that can have the same effect?
Do they have the means to do that over North Korea? Stop them before they can launch?

Careful, you don't want the South to get filled up with pylons.

And concerning EMP, not only does the US have capabilities, even the DPRK has them. There are loads of problems though. The most effective one is a HEMP (high-altitude EMP) generated by a nuclear detonation in the atmosphere which isn't easy to control and has obvious side effects of having to detonate a nuke.Then there's NNEMP (non-nuclear EMP), which is a few magnitudes weaker since you can't really chemically imitate nuclear fission.
And funny enough, North Korea's 60s technology might actually be an advantage there since vacuum tubes are much more resistant to EMPs.

Quaxar:
Careful, you don't want the South to get filled up with pylons.

And concerning EMP, not only does the US have capabilities, even the DPRK has them. There are loads of problems though. The most effective one is a HEMP (high-altitude EMP) generated by a nuclear detonation in the atmosphere which isn't easy to control and has obvious side effects of having to detonate a nuke.Then there's NNEMP (non-nuclear EMP), which is a few magnitudes weaker since you can't really chemically imitate nuclear fission.
And funny enough, North Korea's 60s technology might actually be an advantage there since vacuum tubes are much more resistant to EMPs.

Alright, just if you can disable their ability to Launch a Nuke as well as take down their communications, That'd be Game Set, even more so then it is already.

in an addendum to this story new sanctions were put into place today by a unanimous vote at the UN security council in response to NKs nuclear test.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/world/asia/north-korea-warns-of-pre-emptive-nuclear-attack.html

they were co-authored by China and the United States...

the ambassador from China...told reporters that his country was "committed to safeguarding peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula". "This resolution is a very important step, but one step cannot make a journey" he told reporters. "We need a comprehensive strategy to bring the situation back to dialogue. We need wisdom, persistence, perseverance."

Diablo1099:
Think the US gives South Korea some Drones, that'd be the end of that.
I mean, set up a control panel in a Internet Cafe, Tell them it's a Video Game, Problem Solved.
/jk

OT: Question: Dose the US Military have Tactical EMP Bursts? You know how a Nuke goes off, it fries all computers and such within a certain radius? Did they ever make anything that can have the same effect?
Do they have the means to do that over North Korea? Stop them before they can launch? Captcha: What is for Dinner?

/I know how Politics and how International Relations work would prevent this from happening, this is just a thought exercise.

That's more or less a myth, the EMP from a conventional nuclear weapon will not effect most electronics. Consumer electronics have quite a high tolerance, very small surface area, and are shielded(to protect you, and to protect the device from interference).
It takes 35-40 Kv/M to stop or lock the engine of the modern car, if that happens the only thing you need to do is slide it to a stop and restart the engine.
During car testing for EMP effects at 50Kv/M most cars didn't even suffer damage to their stereo not to mention any real damage to their ignition or fuel injection system.
A 100ktn nuke detonated at 300KM creates an EMP field of about 50Kv/M(at ground Zero), if you remember 8th grade physicis than I'm pretty sure you are aware of the Inverse-Square law, which means that the intensity of the field decreases by the square of the distance. This means that at 300,000M(ground level) the intensity of the EMP blast will be 0.05555555Kv/M, so unless your cellphone will have a conductive surface area the size of the US national power grid you don't have to worry about.
As a rule of thumb, if the electric field is powerful enough to fry your cellphone, you will most likely be either fried by it or by what ever generated it so you should not care as much about your cellphone dying ;)

Verbatim:

LetalisK:

Quaxar:
kersnip

Not to mention that their largest gun is the only artillery piece they have that can reach Seoul and I'm assuming they're not massing every biggest artillery piece they have at the point where they could reach Seoul. Add in the American military's excellent counter-fire operations, as you mentioned, and their shelling would be stopped very quickly. I think even the numbers in the report you gave are a vast overestimate. The biggest threat from North Korea would be an infantry blitz(if they can muster it), which the American military stationed there is not prepared for. Yeah, the artillery would blow the shit out of some infantry, but that only counts for so much if you can't blow them up faster than they come over.

That's more or less a myth, the EMP from a conventional nuclear weapon will not effect most electronics. Consumer electronics have quite a high tolerance, very small surface area, and are shielded(to protect you, and to protect the device from interference).
It takes 35-40 Kv/M to stop or lock the engine of the modern car, if that happens the only thing you need to do is slide it to a stop and restart the engine.
During car testing for EMP effects at 50Kv/M most cars didn't even suffer damage to their stereo not to mention any real damage to their ignition or fuel injection system.
A 100ktn nuke detonated at 300KM creates an EMP field of about 50Kv/M(at ground Zero), if you remember 8th grade physicis than I'm pretty sure you are aware of the Inverse-Square law, which means that the intensity of the field decreases by the square of the distance. This means that at 300,000M(ground level) the intensity of the EMP blast will be 0.05555555Kv/M, so unless your cellphone will have a conductive surface area the size of the US national power grid you don't have to worry about.
As a rule of thumb, if the electric field is powerful enough to fry your cellphone, you will most likely be either fried by it or by what ever generated it so you should not care as much about your cellphone dying ;)

Uh, what? I think you quoted the wrong person.

LetalisK:

Verbatim:

LetalisK:
Not to mention that their largest gun is the only artillery piece they have that can reach Seoul and I'm assuming they're not massing every biggest artillery piece they have at the point where they could reach Seoul. Add in the American military's excellent counter-fire operations, as you mentioned, and their shelling would be stopped very quickly. I think even the numbers in the report you gave are a vast overestimate. The biggest threat from North Korea would be an infantry blitz(if they can muster it), which the American military stationed there is not prepared for. Yeah, the artillery would blow the shit out of some infantry, but that only counts for so much if you can't blow them up faster than they come over.

That's more or less a myth, the EMP from a conventional nuclear weapon will not effect most electronics. Consumer electronics have quite a high tolerance, very small surface area, and are shielded(to protect you, and to protect the device from interference).
It takes 35-40 Kv/M to stop or lock the engine of the modern car, if that happens the only thing you need to do is slide it to a stop and restart the engine.
During car testing for EMP effects at 50Kv/M most cars didn't even suffer damage to their stereo not to mention any real damage to their ignition or fuel injection system.
A 100ktn nuke detonated at 300KM creates an EMP field of about 50Kv/M(at ground Zero), if you remember 8th grade physicis than I'm pretty sure you are aware of the Inverse-Square law, which means that the intensity of the field decreases by the square of the distance. This means that at 300,000M(ground level) the intensity of the EMP blast will be 0.05555555Kv/M, so unless your cellphone will have a conductive surface area the size of the US national power grid you don't have to worry about.
As a rule of thumb, if the electric field is powerful enough to fry your cellphone, you will most likely be either fried by it or by what ever generated it so you should not care as much about your cellphone dying ;)

Uh, what? I think you quoted the wrong person.

I think so as well :P

Wow, they really are goofing hard these days aren't they? Idle threats are one thing(its to be expected at this point) but making quite direct nuclear threats on the US? They really want to back themselves into a corner don't they? Hell even China is pissed at them now so they literally are by themselves. However, as others have said, they can't attack the US directly. They can hit US bases in Japan and Korea maybe, but thats it.

Verbatim:
As a rule of thumb, if the electric field is powerful enough to fry your cellphone, you will most likely be either fried by it or by what ever generated it so you should not care as much about your cellphone dying ;)

Excepting certain hardened military things, which are specially built to resist EMP anyway.

Mind you, in that case that is often a matter of "automatically turn the system of for 1/50th of a second when the pulse comes".

They won't attack, they are not retarded. At least the people in command aren't. While it is possible for one of the generals to go all Dr Strangelove and order an attack without the dear leaders permission, it is unlikely that they would be so short sighted. They know they cannot win against the West, they just threaten to nuke people for attention and food. I find the North Korean Antics quite funny. They fully know about M.A.D and are not willing to throw away all their lives and their Nation away so they can kill some americlaps.

Eshay Adlay:
They won't attack, they are not retarded. At least the people in command aren't. While it is possible for one of the generals to go all Dr Strangelove and order an attack without the dear leaders permission, it is unlikely that they would be so short sighted. They know they cannot win against the West, they just threaten to nuke people for attention and food. I find the North Korean Antics quite funny. They fully know about M.A.D and are not willing to throw away all their lives and their Nation away so they can kill some americlaps.

They have nothing to attack with... other than that i won't trust MAD in all situations, the west does not completely understands the dynamics of the NK culture, there's quite a good chance that the current generals and ministers belive the same crap about the KJX dynasty as the people...

In all honesty, Im more worried about the South Korea getting nuked than about America.

WanderingFool:
In all honesty, Im more worried about the South Korea getting nuked than about America.

Quite right. Their rockets are so useless and inaccurate that if they aimed one at the USA, the only thing at risk would be a few square kilometres of Pacific sealife.

Agema:

WanderingFool:
In all honesty, Im more worried about the South Korea getting nuked than about America.

Quite right. Their rockets are so useless and inaccurate that if they aimed one at the USA, the only thing at risk would be a few square kilometres of Pacific sealife.

They don't need a missile, mind. All it would take is a cargo ship. Drop the thing on the sea floor at or near a port, or initiate it when it is still on board. The US was worried about the Soviets doing such things during the Cold War to get past early warning systems.

thaluikhain:

Agema:

WanderingFool:
In all honesty, Im more worried about the South Korea getting nuked than about America.

Quite right. Their rockets are so useless and inaccurate that if they aimed one at the USA, the only thing at risk would be a few square kilometres of Pacific sealife.

They don't need a missile, mind. All it would take is a cargo ship. Drop the thing on the sea floor at or near a port, or initiate it when it is still on board. The US was worried about the Soviets doing such things during the Cold War to get past early warning systems.

At least, underwater, a hiroshima sized nuke would do limited damage. You need to get them up in the air.

I sure hope not. Like I needed more things to be worried about... damned paranoia...

Well, the majority of the natural resources are located in North Korea. Use this as an excuse to raze the country and then stripmine the land for good ol' USA.

Gorfias:

thaluikhain:

Agema:

Quite right. Their rockets are so useless and inaccurate that if they aimed one at the USA, the only thing at risk would be a few square kilometres of Pacific sealife.

They don't need a missile, mind. All it would take is a cargo ship. Drop the thing on the sea floor at or near a port, or initiate it when it is still on board. The US was worried about the Soviets doing such things during the Cold War to get past early warning systems.

At least, underwater, a hiroshima sized nuke would do limited damage. You need to get them up in the air.

True. You are producing a large cloud of radioactive water which rushes away from the point of initiation, though.

OTOH, simply going indoors and closing all the doors and windows and waiting until you're told it is safe is a decent protection.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/29/us-korea-north-idUSBRE92R13R20130329

in my opinion there bluffing. i dont think there stupid enough to launch an attack of that scale.

All it takes is one over-zealous officer. Just ask Georgia. I bet you thought they weren't stupid enough to launch any attack of any scale on Russia.

It'll be interesting to watch.

damn. I sure hope it is a bluff, it would mean war if they did launch them

I had no idea we had bombers with that kind of range, if I was North Korea I'd be shaking in my boots not readying for an attack. This seems to be like one of those on week war situations where no one would need to step into North Korea to completely cripple their military and destroy all their nuclear weapons. Of course that isn't the preferred situation but it seems it's becoming unavoidable.

dmase:
I had no idea we had bombers with that kind of range, if I was North Korea I'd be shaking in my boots not readying for an attack. This seems to be like one of those on week war situations where no one would need to step into North Korea to completely cripple their military and destroy all their nuclear weapons. Of course that isn't the preferred situation but it seems it's becoming unavoidable.

would of had a couple of inflight re-fueling i imagine.
its just another show, north korea has only one card to play but that would assure its destruction

carlsberg export:

would of had a couple of inflight re-fueling i imagine.
its just another show, north korea has only one card to play but that would assure its destruction

I highly doubt that. I'm pretty sure that even the US military decision-makers aren't willing to commit genocide.

Other than that? I don't expect DRPK lasting much longer as a sovereign state, that much I don't. Especially if China decides they've had enough. I'd also be appaled if the western powers decided that South Korea is acceptable collateral damage, since escalation would inevitably lead to Seoul being shelled by the N. Korean artillery.

Oh and yeah, yeah "lol 50 years old soviet hand-me-downs" and all that, but remember what happened last time someone thought a war would be "quick and easy".

Vegosiux:

carlsberg export:

would of had a couple of inflight re-fueling i imagine.
its just another show, north korea has only one card to play but that would assure its destruction

I highly doubt that. I'm pretty sure that even the US military decision-makers aren't willing to commit genocide.

Other than that? I don't expect DRPK lasting much longer as a sovereign state, that much I don't. Especially if China decides they've had enough. I'd also be appaled if the western powers decided that South Korea is acceptable collateral damage, since escalation would inevitably lead to Seoul being shelled by the N. Korean artillery.

Oh and yeah, yeah "lol 50 years old soviet hand-me-downs" and all that, but remember what happened last time someone thought a war would be "quick and easy".

why would america commit genocide?
i think you have misinterpreted me, i dont think america would do such a thing.

dmase:
I had no idea we had bombers with that kind of range

They didn't need to fly all the way from the US if that is what you are thinking.

Its one of the nice things about being both the dominant naval and air force in a world that is mostly water. There is literally no point on Earth we cannot air strike with significant punch within a few hours of first notice (although usually with non nuclear payloads), and a minor invasion can begin within 12. Nations like Korea in particular are... vulnerable.

carlsberg export:

why would america commit genocide?
i think you have misinterpreted me, i dont think america would do such a thing.

Maybe. I guess it's that I'm of the opinion that really "destroying" a country includes "depopulating" it, to use a politically correct expression.

Wrecking it up and kicking it back to the stone age (which, as far as DRPK goes isn't much of a setback as it is, as rude as that sounds) is one thing, but "destroying" it is quite another...

Vegosiux:

carlsberg export:

why would america commit genocide?
i think you have misinterpreted me, i dont think america would do such a thing.

Maybe. I guess it's that I'm of the opinion that really "destroying" a country includes "depopulating" it, to use a politically correct expression.

Wrecking it up and kicking it back to the stone age (which, as far as DRPK goes isn't much of a setback as it is, as rude as that sounds) is one thing, but "destroying" it is quite another...

ah well thats it then, i was thinking more along the lines of any backlash against a north korean attack would destroy infastructure, the government and its armed forces. i know north korea has some food issues already so i imagine people could starve if there was a war too.

Vegosiux:

carlsberg export:

why would america commit genocide?
i think you have misinterpreted me, i dont think america would do such a thing.

Maybe. I guess it's that I'm of the opinion that really "destroying" a country includes "depopulating" it, to use a politically correct expression.

Wrecking it up and kicking it back to the stone age (which, as far as DRPK goes isn't much of a setback as it is, as rude as that sounds) is one thing, but "destroying" it is quite another...

Destroying a country requires no such thing. In fact, it can be done without any actual conflict in some cases.

A country in essence is a social construct, not the landmass it covers, and not the people it involves. Destroying it "simply" requires causing/convincing/forcing the people to abandon their current status quo en masse one way or another.

North Korea has nearly done it to itself at this point. Finish breaking the government's grip on the hearts and minds of the people and they are screwed. Unfortunately, the easiest option to do so is to prove to the people that the government is not capable of protecting them, which does indeed require destruction.

Heronblade:

A country in essence is a social construct, not the landmass it covers, and not the people it involves.

A permanent population and a territory are necessary prerequisites for a sovereign state, as per the Montevideo Convention[1], which codified what statehood means and is widely accepted as part of international law.

Article 1

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

And while I agree that "country" technically does not mean the same thing as "sovereign state", they're so often used interchangeably that the line gets blurred.

Destroying it "simply" requires causing/convincing/forcing the people to abandon their current status quo en masse one way or another. North Korea has nearly done it to itself at this point. Finish breaking the government's grip on the hearts and minds of the people and they are screwed.

A revolution does not destroy a country, nor does it destroy a sovereign state. It does change it radically, yes, but the people overthrowing and executing Ceausescu, for example, didn't "destroy" Romania. Now if a country gets balkanized, that's a whole different story, but I don't see that happening in case of North Korea.

Welp, so deep into semantics now. I suppose it's important to note the differences between what "country", "sovereign state", and "regime" mean. I know what you mean, you know what I mean (I hope), and I'm not disagreeing with you. Just nit-picking about the words you're using. I get obnoxious like that sometimes.

Edit: Excuse me the late edit, I had some trouble finding the thing.

Vegosiux:

Heronblade:

A country in essence is a social construct, not the landmass it covers, and not the people it involves.

A permanent population and a territory are necessary prerequisites for a sovereign state, as per the Montevideo Convention, which codified what statehood means and is widely accepted as part of international law.

Article 1

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

And while I agree that "country" technically does not mean the same thing as "sovereign state", they're so often used interchangeably that the line gets blurred.

They are prerequisites, yes, but that still does not mean that they are one and the same thing

Vegosiux:

Destroying it "simply" requires causing/convincing/forcing the people to abandon their current status quo en masse one way or another. North Korea has nearly done it to itself at this point. Finish breaking the government's grip on the hearts and minds of the people and they are screwed.

A revolution does not destroy a country, nor does it destroy a sovereign state. It does change it radically, yes, but the people overthrowing and executing Ceausescu, for example, didn't "destroy" Romania. Now if a country gets balkanized, that's a whole different story, but I don't see that happening in case of North Korea.

Welp, so deep into semantics now. I suppose it's important to note the differences between what "country", "sovereign state", and "regime" mean. I know what you mean, you know what I mean (I hope), and I'm not disagreeing with you. Just nit-picking about the words you're using. I get obnoxious like that sometimes.

Edit: Excuse me the late edit, I had some trouble finding the thing.

I could perhaps have phrased what I meant better here.

Countries change over time. The USA of today is radically different from that of one hundred years ago, different people, ideals, social norms, government, etc. But the changes have been by and large been gradual.

I agree that most revolutions don't count. Simply replacing one despot with another of a different stripe doesn't cut it. I would however argue that an event that brings about that same kind of change within a short span of time does indeed "destroy" the country. The best example I can think of would be the formation of the USSR. Even discounting the form of government, we saw an almost immediate, and drastic, change in almost every aspect of the people's lives. Same people, same location, radically different country.

But this is getting rather off topic, I'm fairly sure Carlsberg simply meant that any aggressive move on NK's part will end with their infrastructure completely crippled with almost no effort on our part.

Heronblade:

But this is getting rather off topic, I'm fairly sure Carlsberg simply meant that any aggressive move on NK's part will end with their infrastructure completely crippled with almost no effort on our part.

I think we can call it quits there, yeah, that exchange seems finished. And I agree on this, mind. I think NK's infrastructure is liable to implode the moment some strain is put on it, and a full mobilization could be such a strain.

Oh and apparently there was some stuff on Wikileaks about how China seems to be already planning out for a Korean peninsula controlled by Seoul. It's a "so I heard" thing, I don't have a source for it (and I'm too lazy to actually trudge through Wikilekas to see if it's really around).

Ah, and Russia's response was kind of funny, talking about how "unilateral actions are making things escalate", which was likely a veiled stab at the US flyover. All in all, the NK regime has really cornered itself. I'm still waiting for China to make their move, however...the entire thing is simply too close to home that they could afford to sit by idly.

Staying on topic: I have a bad feeling they're finally gonna do it: That they're finally gonna kill themselves and take a lot of South-East Asia with them. Here's hoping it is a bluff, but my gut is telling me they're serious...

Because when you're a tiny insignificant military controlled country, the best military strategy you can come up with is to publicly announce you're going to attack the strongest military in the world...

...sounds about right for North Korea.

I just can't take them seriously; I just can't. The only thing in danger of getting hit by one of their missiles is the poor fish off their coast.

I know, on a more logical level, that a war would be nasty, but probably short, but still a lot of damage would be done, although in North Koreans case I see that being something of the opening act only. I don't think they can do anything remotely close to a sustained conflict.

On an emotional level I just can't stop giggling.

But it's like a weak underfed child striding into a college Gym and threatening to kick people in the shins. He had friends once who would have backed him up but he's just been so erratic and picking fights the bigger kid doesn't want to get involved in.

Mr.Mattress:
Staying on topic: I have a bad feeling they're finally gonna do it: That they're finally gonna kill themselves and take a lot of South-East Asia with them. Here's hoping it is a bluff, but my gut is telling me they're serious...

And how exactly would Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodja etc. get involved in North-Korea's ingenious suicide attempts?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked