Posted on Jan 20, 2018
Despite Talks, The U.S. Appears to Quietly Prepare for Nuclear War With North Korea
796
10
17
5
5
0
Would it make sense to not prepare for war with a belligerent nation led by belligerent tyrant?
Despite Talks, The U.S. Appears to Quietly Prepare for Nuclear War With North Korea
Posted from tribunist.comPosted in these groups: 
North Korea
North Korea
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 4
2
2
0
0
0
0
We should be as ready as you can be for any/all scenarios. That is hard to do considering how many there could be. The US and our allies own this. We allowed NK to outsmart us and lie to us for decades all the while working toward the ability to launch a nuclear strike. They must laugh in private at our willingness to believe every lie they tell us.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The answer to your question, Jack, is obviously "No".
To ignore a threat and deliberately refuse to consider preparing for a war with a nuclear armed belligerent is the height of folly.
This doesn't mean, of course, that a nuclear response is mandated in response to an attack. I'm sure that's what most common folk would think. Quite frankly, if North Korea did launch a nuclear strike, we've got more than enough military assets and capability to simply waltz in, stomp his government flat, and occupy his nation without using nuclear weapons.
Launching a nuclear weapon would galvanize the entire world against North Korea. And very likely, China would step in quickly and do exactly what I mentioned above, if for no other reason than they wouldn't want US doing it along their border.
To ignore a threat and deliberately refuse to consider preparing for a war with a nuclear armed belligerent is the height of folly.
This doesn't mean, of course, that a nuclear response is mandated in response to an attack. I'm sure that's what most common folk would think. Quite frankly, if North Korea did launch a nuclear strike, we've got more than enough military assets and capability to simply waltz in, stomp his government flat, and occupy his nation without using nuclear weapons.
Launching a nuclear weapon would galvanize the entire world against North Korea. And very likely, China would step in quickly and do exactly what I mentioned above, if for no other reason than they wouldn't want US doing it along their border.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
CPO Glenn Moss - As a statement this the above is not a fact simply an opinion. Using a small grade tactical warhead on a launch site is absolutely justified if it will prevent the deaths of 20+ million South Koreans. using nuclear to destroy NK's artillery may be justified I certainly would use them if conventional alone would result in the destruction of Seoul. Obviously not using nuke's is preferred but NK has a large artillery force, and substantive SAM capabilities, B-52's just won't be able to carpet bomb for some time and F-35/22's just don't exist in the quantities required. Therefore the president will be required to justify in terms of South Korean lives how many of their dead are worth not using nukes, also bear in mind the global consequences if 10% of the worlds steel production is destroyed, using some nukes north of the DMZ is the clear option if NK were to begin an all out attack against Seoul.
(0)
(0)
CPO Glenn Moss
I agree it is ONE option. Whether or not its a VIABLE option is another matter entirely, for any number of reasons.
For example, a "small grade tactical nuke" is less and less likely to be required in the scenario you gave due to ongoing advances in other military capabilities. There are plenty of non-nuclear options, such as conventional explosive armed bunker-buster options and precision guided munitions, which are perfectly suitable to taking out a launch site.
But, like your example, this is not the only possible solution to any given military objective.
There is a very real danger of tactical nuclear weapons use escalating in nature, and that's not to be ignored as a consequence.
Another matter to consider here is "what constitutes a tactical nuclear weapon"? There is no definition which says what, exactly, the difference between a tactical and a strategic nuclear weapon is. A 200 kT "tactical nuclear weapon" is 10 to 15 times more powerful than what we dropped on Japan and is fully capable of destroying a large city.
In fact, there are those, even in charge of nuclear weapons in the military, who will say that there is no such thing as a "tactical nuclear weapon"...that they are all "strategic nuclear weapons". General John Hyten is one such person, and he's in charge of U.S. Strategic Command.
Even if the tactical nuclear weapon is a low-yield, penetrating bunker buster in the low kT range, The effect of its use WILL be strategic.
For example, a "small grade tactical nuke" is less and less likely to be required in the scenario you gave due to ongoing advances in other military capabilities. There are plenty of non-nuclear options, such as conventional explosive armed bunker-buster options and precision guided munitions, which are perfectly suitable to taking out a launch site.
But, like your example, this is not the only possible solution to any given military objective.
There is a very real danger of tactical nuclear weapons use escalating in nature, and that's not to be ignored as a consequence.
Another matter to consider here is "what constitutes a tactical nuclear weapon"? There is no definition which says what, exactly, the difference between a tactical and a strategic nuclear weapon is. A 200 kT "tactical nuclear weapon" is 10 to 15 times more powerful than what we dropped on Japan and is fully capable of destroying a large city.
In fact, there are those, even in charge of nuclear weapons in the military, who will say that there is no such thing as a "tactical nuclear weapon"...that they are all "strategic nuclear weapons". General John Hyten is one such person, and he's in charge of U.S. Strategic Command.
Even if the tactical nuclear weapon is a low-yield, penetrating bunker buster in the low kT range, The effect of its use WILL be strategic.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
CPO Glenn Moss - Glenn, I am agreeing in part and not in others. Waiting for NK to launch on a city us pure folly. We should be willing and are certainly able to strike before that happens. Waiting for a western city to vaporize before building the resolve to annihilate this regime is a poor strategy. The notion that we wait means millions of innocents could die in one of the cities I mentioned.
I am not interested in galvanizing more support against NK by waiting to see a missile leave the pad and hurtle toward us. We have little likelihood of taking it out so we would have to wait to see who didn't live through it.
This notion that we can wait for a nuclear strike, then waltz across the border and stomp him with conventional force is a folly too. They would be shelling Seoul in a matter of minutes and we do not have enough conventional force on the peninsula to cross the border and take them on. We would have to go tactical nuke to take out artillery, hold a defensive position where we could, use air to keep them back while we landed more forces from Okinawa, MEU's, Japan, etc.
Preparation for many scenarios is good but if we wait for him to launch we have waited too long and millions will die while we have dilly dallied around.
I am not interested in galvanizing more support against NK by waiting to see a missile leave the pad and hurtle toward us. We have little likelihood of taking it out so we would have to wait to see who didn't live through it.
This notion that we can wait for a nuclear strike, then waltz across the border and stomp him with conventional force is a folly too. They would be shelling Seoul in a matter of minutes and we do not have enough conventional force on the peninsula to cross the border and take them on. We would have to go tactical nuke to take out artillery, hold a defensive position where we could, use air to keep them back while we landed more forces from Okinawa, MEU's, Japan, etc.
Preparation for many scenarios is good but if we wait for him to launch we have waited too long and millions will die while we have dilly dallied around.
(1)
(0)
CPO Glenn Moss
Cpl Jeff N. - Remember, the action(s) we take will be based on the intelligence we gather, as well. We're not just reactive in the military. North Korea is absolutely the focus of much intelligence gathering from a variety of sources.
I've no doubt that military strategies are constantly being developed and revised continuously with respect to North Korea, even as we post here on RP.
I've no doubt that military strategies are constantly being developed and revised continuously with respect to North Korea, even as we post here on RP.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google