Yes, because America is usually following rules... /s

I'm no fan of fatty, but what you suggested would cause quite some collateral damage, legal things aside.
But no worries, your president doesn't care about these irrelevant annoyances either.
Bombs away!

Because we all can be sure NK won't launch retaliation attacks after a missile blew up their leader... Right?
It's called diplomacy, might consider it before going Gung-ho on a country with unknown nuclear capabilities...

US ABM would probably protect CONUS.

Some expert on Swedish TV said that Kim was kind of "we really don't know how he is today or tomorrow" and we don't know how he would react if USA made such a strike on his military installations and installation that have to do with NK's nuclear facilities.

Maybe we will be witness to an huge increase of Verbale Rhetoric from
Kim & Co threating all and everyone after such a strike. Maybe he throw almost everything he as against South Korea, Chemical, Biological and other stuff.

An another expert(military), this time on Danish TV. said a while ago. If NK want to drop an atomic bomb on Seoul the have to take it on a bomberplane, the same way USA did, when they dropped their two bombs on Japan. NK does not have to knowledge to fit a big boy or more than one into the top of a missile or an ICBM- They have the knowledge on medium and shortrange missile.

Of course theory and real life is two different things.

Markus

*sigh*

Right, let's clear some things up. I've been on a research binge on North Korea and their abilities and non-abilities over the past two to three weeks and the following things have become increasingly clear.
1. Any military action against North Korea will cause them to launch their nuclear missiles. They have no way to tell if US missiles are aiming to decapitate the Kim regime or just hit their nuclear launch abilities, either way they will launch on warning, or launch on dead-hand. They have short range and medium range ballistic missiles, as well as submarine launched ballistic missiles. These give them opportunities to get around the South Korean based THAAD system by either launching from the sea behind the THAADs radar and intercept radius, or by lofting the missiles on a sharp trajectory from closer to the border so that their re-entry speed is higher than the THAAD system can intercept.
2. There are no guarantees that the AEGIS ships and systems in the region can intercept all of the missiles, North Korea has practiced salvo firing ballistic missiles in order to flood the missile defence programs software with targets, much in the same way the Soviets planned to flood the carrier group with nuclear tipped ASMs from Oscar IIs and Tu-22Ms.
3. AEGIS warships cannot intercept ICBMs.
4. The ICBM interceptor for the US is the Ground-Based Midcourse Defence system in Alaska. It can handle a small amount of missiles. Currently there is no knowledge of how many ICBMs North Korea has, nor of their actual ability to get off the ground. Any interceptors launched from Alaska will either hit the target, or crash into Russia.
5. Estimates of North Koreas nuclear arsenal start at around 20. Reports indicate that North Korea has enough Lithium-6 to sell excess through shell companies in China. Therefore it's likely that the number is higher than 20.
6. The DPRK also has biological and chemical weaponry.
7. The DPRK has more than 1000 missiles of varying ranges.
8. The PRC will not support US military action in North Korea.


So, what can we conclude from this?

That any military attack on North Korea will almost inevitably lead to the firing of most, if not all, of their missile stockpile at targets ranging from South Korea, Japan, Guam and potentially the United States, even if the ICBMs are untested. Since the majority of the missiles are road mobile it will be very hard for the US and its allies to hit all of the missiles at once, which means that some missiles will survive the initial strike and as soon as they realise what is happening they will launch on their pre-defined targets. Nuclear explosions will consume targets in South Korea, Japan and Guam, potentially missiles will also launch towards the continental United States. Depending on how many missiles are launched at the US and the destination of those missiles will depend on whether the GBMD system in Alaska can intercept them. There are forty missiles at Fort Greenly, which will be salvo fired at each incoming ICBM, once those forty missiles are fired, America is defenceless against incoming ICBMs. It's also questionable that the system can defend the US against ICBMs heading for the East Coast.
Furthermore any military action from the United States against North Korea may in turn provoke a response from the Peoples Republic of China. Whilst I think they will be loathe to defend the DPRK after it has nuked most of South-East Asia, they will equally be incredibly loathe to see the DPRK removed and the buffer zone between American backed South Korea and the PRC border removed. Not to mention the potential for hordes of North Korea refugees heading across the border and destroying the PRCs economy. So if the US and the ROK (what's left of it) cross the 38th parallel and head north, expect China to head south...in force. China has more ICBMs and nuclear warheads than the DPRK, not to mention a hell of a lot more soldiers and better equipment. If the PRC enters the war on the Korean peninsula against the US and allies, the US and allies cannot win without going MacArthur, which will then escalate into the whole-sale destruction of the PRC and the United States.

So, war against the DPRK now or in the future is not a feasible prospect without significant casualties, and if the US public cannot handle the few casualties it has taken in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade and a half, it sure as hell won't handle the casualties it will take from the continuation of the Korean war.

Right, that's my info dump, do with it what you will. I'm out of here again. :salute:

Out of here? Why? You working for the railroad now? :)

Anyway, no one really knows what works happen. Take out Kim and there is an equally likely scenario where the NK backup leadership throws up the white flag and says Thanks!

Nice to see you Oberon, I thought you were dead....:ping:

I tend to agree. You had the same issue with Iran. When the USA and Israel were looking into dealing with Iran's nuclear program militarily, they seem to have reached the same conclusion.

Most of Iran's research facility were spread out around the country, some in cities, some in deep underground facilities.

Even with a massive strike, there was no guarantee you could take out the entire program without using tactical Nukes and/or minimizing civilian casualties.

Even if the strike worked, the most likely result would only be to delay the program by 5-10 years.

I would think the same analysis applies to North Korea.

@ Oberon I found your information very informativ. I had some thoughts while reading it.

Hmm wonder who's right. Oberon and the source he has used or this Danish expert on military who said NK isn't/wasn't capable to put nukes on a missile.

Maybe Neal is right, maybe the political and military infrastructure would fall like a cardhouse - No one know.

And that is why I'm almost 99 % sure that Trump have asked China to deal with NK, cause he and his staff have been thinking about this and possible scenarios after an American strike on NK.

Markus

Oberon we mostly agree. The points we disagree on:
- DPRK's offensive capability and it's survivability.
- the ability of US to conduct a counter force strike.
- the ability of US to intercept the retahilation strike.

Considering how Russia believes that US is working on achieving a valid first strike capability against Russia, DPRK, with it's smaller offensive arsenal and essentially non existant EW (70s grade tech with few PRC operated exceptions, mane capabilities are non existant) and strategic air defenses (which are 70s-early 80s vintage), would be much more vulnerable to the US first strike and, considering both it's small (compared to Russia) size and quality (ie countermeasures wise) we believe that US would be able to intercept what is left of it.

However it does come from the point of view of Russian deterent and thus that view may be generous regarding US capabilities to stay on the safe side.

Assassinating the head of state of a sovereign country without being in a state of war?

That's not the United States I fought for. :nope:

The threat of Nuclear Bombs has to override everything imo .

He's not a legitimate head of state and NK is not a sovereign country. He's a psychotic dictator and NK is a region of oppressed slaves.

Would you say the same, if it was your soil potentially under attactk?

Funny, by that vigilante-logic, we could almost say the same about many other countries..... The USA for example. :p

Now of course, KJU deserves a Tomahawk or two, but that's just not how it works.

Slippery slope.

No wonder they want nuclear weapons to preclude 3rd party interference.

Can North Korean missiles reach California if they work? :D It would be just terrible if they could, last thing we would ever want next to being thrown in a briar patch. :03: