-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
North Korea warns new missile can hit US with large nuclear warchead
- Thread starter Kyzer
- Start date
For NK it isn't about deterring a US nuclear strike, it's about deterring a US conventional attack that aims to bring about regime change. If US invades NK at least has the threat of dropping a nuke on the US or a US ally. The idea is to give the US, or anyone else, pause in doing jack shit to bring about regime change.
Of course if NK does use a nuke in response to a US led invasion, they will be wiped off the map entirely. But as far as the regime is concerned the end of the regime is the end of the country, and as soon as US boots are on the ground in NK, the game is already over. They might as well watch the world burn if they are going to go down. That's why it's a deterrent.
onken
Member
Literally nobody is saying it would be a cake walk.
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
I heard Russia ain't too happy about it coming down 60 miles off their coast.
Sorry and don't take it personally but that's really total nonsense.
I doubt they could move that many troops without us and SK knowing. God, the death vcount on both sides. SK would just start carpet bombing the DMZ the moment the first boot kicked the first mine.
SchrodingerC
Member
Not buying the constant saber rattling.
Dear leader should fully know if a single nuke were to even touch the US, NK would cease to exist.
He ain't risking his empire.
Dear leader should fully know if a single nuke were to even touch the US, NK would cease to exist.
He ain't risking his empire.
It's not really?
It's about building up enough military force to prevent an outside influence from attempting regime change because the consequences would be too costly.
Actually I think a hell of a lot of Americans think we could just press a few buttons and it would be over.
Hell Donald Trump probably thinks this. "Why can't we use nukes" All the comments of suicidal North Korea, oh this crazy guy playing with his own death. The US is so strong, etc, etc.
It would in all likelihood be over in matter of days. It's exactly this reason NK wants legit long distance nukes because if they can even get one to land in a population center you have to think long and hard about invading north korea. Thread is already pretty clear people don't seem to understand that though. NK saying they have long distance nukes = don't try and regime change us or it's literally nuclear hell you're unleashing on you and your allies.
Lord Fagan
Junior Member
BeardyChan
Member
So they put a nuke on a boat and somehow snuck it over here? That's what I'm getting from this threat.
But how many people die in those few days? How many lives ineptly lost is worth it?
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
What makes you believe that? If we did nuke them they have infrastructure far underground to keep things going. Then you have to take into account that they would send their million man army, and 6 million in reserves, across the DMZ into South Korea. We'd spend most of our forces to drive them back North. And on top of all that how would you account for China never letting war break out on the Korean Peninsula in the first place?
They're entire strategy is actually a trigger switch: attack us and we break a dam.
it's not deterrence it's blackmail. Deterrence is an attempt to create a symmetrical or sustainable defense. NK has simply wired itself to self destruct.
You could argue it's a one sided mutual assured destruction ploy or even a hunger strike but it certainly isn't anything like conventional deterrence which is designed to protect a country. NK is offering its neck because it doesn't care about its body.
They absolutely will if they can
So what you're suggesting is that, before North Korea can fire even a single shot, the United States will systematically murder 25 million civilians, blanket nuking every possible location a missile could be hidden, just to avoid retaliation. Meanwhile, condemning millions more in surrounding allied and non-combatant countries to death.
And you think that's a credible threat.
It's not credible.
theignoramus
Member
That CNN article says NK's newly tested missile could potentially carry a nuclear warhead to the US Air Force base in Guam.
If thats true, the Pentagon has to consider the possibility of a retaliatory nuclear attack against a major US military installation if Trump orders a bombing of the North.
If thats true, the Pentagon has to consider the possibility of a retaliatory nuclear attack against a major US military installation if Trump orders a bombing of the North.
I think it's important to remember when discussing North Korea that there's a difference between being able to reach Guam and being able to hit Guam.
Agreed, it isn't traditional deterrance because they don't have the resources to do it. Honestly though no country in the world does if it comes down to a conventional war with the US. It's about threatening extreme violence if regime change is what the US decided it wants to do. They don't really have any other realistic options other than a peaceful surrender, or just fighting it out conventionally for as long as possible. They are an extremist regime though, and it's goal is to preserve itself at all costs, and that includes threatening nuclear violence to give anyone pause on carrying out any attempt at regime change. It actually is rational, if you're the NK regime who doesn't give a fuck about the consequences to their people or anyone else. You could say that attitude in itself isn't rational, but that's the regime you are dealing with so you have to understand someone might get nuked if you try to end the current regime in NK, which is exactly what they are telling the world. So it actually becomes extremely irrational to preemptively do anything to NK given it seems they actually do have a legitimate nuclear weapons program, so it's not at all like Iraq or anything else.
They could already hit the US base in Iwakuni, Japan (among others) and numerous US bases in SK. Maybe not "major" enough for you but not small potatoes either.
It's not just that either. They might decide to hit population centers instead of US bases because they know they are on the way out at that point and it's pretty clear they don't give a fuck.
theignoramus
Member
The question here is what can the US do to prevent NK from actually launching a missile within 2 minutes if it wanted to. If NK has portable missile launchers travelling in underground roadways carved into their mountainside, I seriously doubt there's a reliable way to stop a launch from happening. In fact, I doubt you could even detect a launch until the moment it happened.
MadJackChurchill
Banned
Ths isn't ICBM. They're like 20 years off ICBM. Still, it's time to start the talking.
We have more to lose. I mean, they would lose their existence, but the consequences for the US would be unprecedented. Even supposing NK failed to successfully reach US soil with any of their missiles, they would obliterate Seoul and quite possibly attack Japan, then China/whatever is left of SK and likely many other militarily capable nations around the world would hold the US accountable, as they should. If fallout from a US launched nuke hits China why shouldn't they consider it an act of war against them?
That's the thing about nukes post WW2. It doesn't matter who uses them where, it will end up involving everybody.
MadJackChurchill
Banned
Uhhhh, how? Yeah, they've done some messed up stuff.
They've bombed a South Korean embassy.
They've shelled an island 12km from their mainland with disputed ownership.
They've assassinated the brother to Kim Jong Un.
Had a few confrontations across the DMZ.
Hardly invading Kuwait, though, is it? Does that really warrant an pre-emptive strike?
OK, Fat Kim.
N.K hats are always so fucking goofy looking
lastplayed
Member
A lot of military dress hats are to be fair.
I always knew you were part of the NK military silly hats defense force. SMH...
lastplayed
Member
Auto_aim1
MeisaMcCaffrey
Once they have 100 nuclear warheads it is no longer possible to ignore and also no longer possible to do anything about it.
I'm not arguing with those events, I'm saying the intent is not to prevent an imminent US invasion, it is to create a bulwark of potential chaos and famine to maintain a blackmail status quo, something that is further complicated by China (less and less) tolerating it as a communist buffer state between it an South Korea (which is views as a US proxy).
China's move into capitalism is the worst thing to happen to NK since the war, and makes the dam wall especially crumbly.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
They practically have one now.
Why would the US launch a preemptive nuclear strike? NK posture seems to indicate that they see nukes as a deterrent to conventional attacks and as a means of coercive diplomacy.
And on the triad. You seem to be implying they can't launch a second strike?
First of all they have submarine based missiles and are developing road mobile ICBMs (I believe that have already developed pretty reliable road mobile IRBMS)
They ability to attack Tokyo and Seoul in addition to US military bases and potentially Guam is a deterrent
This idea that NK is suicidal or stupid and that its weapons don't work is worrisome, its not 2006 anymore
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Glad to know your an arms control expert. Most people including the US intelligence community believes around 2020 they'll be able to reach the west coast. Likely not that long till the entire US, reliably. In fact US military leaders are already operating under the assumption they can hit the US because they have launched satellites into orbit though there is doubt about a warheads ability to reenter the atmosphere.
How do they have nothing to gain, if they can launch a nuke if the US attacks the US is unlikely to attack because it doesn't want to start wwiii and the first nuclear war. It gives them the ability to withstand and pressure other countries.
Similar threads
- Poll