Strike on North Korea - Page 55

STEED · 11-05-17, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Joint Chiefs say invasion 'only way' to totally disarm N Korea

A Pentagon assessment has declared the only way to completely destroy all parts of North Korea's nuclear weapons programme is through a ground invasion.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41878123

What do you guys in America make of this?

Rather troubling.

Platapus · 11-05-17, 01:06 PM

Troubling, it's insane.
If the only objective is to destroy all of North Korea's weapon programs, then yes, I guess invasion and killing/destroying large parts of their country is the only way to be sure.

But that should not be the only objective. Perhaps a better objective is not to force North Korea into a position where they think the above is the US's only objective and that North Korea has "nothing to lose".

ikalugin · 11-05-17, 02:02 PM

Just watched the "13 days" and this sort of reminds me of it.

mapuc · 11-05-17, 02:19 PM

One thing I know for sure....China will never approve such action from USA.

Markus

Delgard · 11-05-17, 02:20 PM

It is good to have doves and hawks. Obviously, the SEC State talks diplomacy and the JCS talks destroying the threat. The VEEP talks stability and, well, POTUS talks a tough position.

Their seems to be a long pause. If the U.S. rhetoric keeps NK from doing what they are doing for 4 years, that will be seen as an effective strategy.

NK needs to test missiles and warheads; without that, they slow down and permit China, Japan, and SK to better prepare.

I see it as NK's turn.

STEED · 11-05-17, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mapuc

One thing I know for sure....China will never approve such action from USA.

Markus

China has made that very clear, if we strike first they will support NK. If NK strikes first they are on their own.

mapuc · 11-05-17, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by STEED

China has made that very clear, if we strike first they will support NK. If NK strikes first they are on their own.

Not even if NK should strikes first, will they allow an American invasion of North Korea.

Markus

STEED · 11-05-17, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mapuc

Not even if NK should strikes first, will they allow an American invasion of North Korea.

Markus

I doubt we need not bother with that as the Nukes probably be flying.

Delgard · 11-05-17, 03:04 PM

Way down below China was discussed on and off.

For me, in learning, I think China has drifted a bit from just arbitrarily coming to NK's defense. They have drifted towards their own agenda since KJU took over. I think they see the world in color as compared to NKs black and white.

Just me.

Mr Quatro · 11-05-17, 03:07 PM

As a military kind of thinker, opposed to a political thinker, I say we call their bluff ... China won't do a thing or risk war themselves.

They won't unleash their nuclear arsenal of weapons to defend poor little NK.

They will of course protest along with Russia and Trump will assert that that NK had it coming due to it's constant disregard for peace talks to put their weapons program on hold.

Gentlemen war is on the way ... I am sure of that. Before they have the ability to strike back in the numbers game of deadly nuclear tipped missiles.

This war is between good and evil ... it is good to stop evil before they can strike back and hurt the mother land.

One or two EMP strikes over NK should take out any accuracy of their launching a second attack.

Delgard · 11-05-17, 03:08 PM

...(and so the CJCS speaks...)

ikalugin · 11-05-17, 04:05 PM

Quote:

One or two EMP strikes over NK should take out any accuracy of their launching a second attack.

Implying that they need any of that to hit cities.

Delgard · 11-05-17, 06:47 PM

I saw a nighttime satellite view of NK. Do they even have electricity?

ikalugin · 11-06-17, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delgard

I saw a nighttime satellite view of NK. Do they even have electricity?

Just pretend that they are too green to actually use it

Delgard · 11-06-17, 08:06 AM

Just saw this in the news...I have thought on it often in the past.

"If the Pentagon wants to secure all of North Korea's nuclear weapons in the event of a conflict, it's going to have to send in lots of ground troops to get the job done. That's the conclusion shared with lawmakers in a letter from vice director of the Joint Staff Rear Adm. Michael J. Dumont. Dumont also writes that North Korea would also consider the use of biological and chemical weapons in the event of a war with the United States."

Reason is that if U.S. forces flow into SK, those arrival sites (ports/airfields) would be prime targets for short/medium range missile(s)

11-05-17, 01:06 PM	#812
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 18,957 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	Troubling, it's insane. If the only objective is to destroy all of North Korea's weapon programs, then yes, I guess invasion and killing/destroying large parts of their country is the only way to be sure. But that should not be the only objective. Perhaps a better objective is not to force North Korea into a position where they think the above is the US's only objective and that North Korea has "nothing to lose". __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

11-05-17, 02:02 PM	#813
ikalugin Ocean Warrior Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 3,212 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 0	Just watched the "13 days" and this sort of reminds me of it. __________________ Grumpy as always.

11-05-17, 03:07 PM	#820
Mr Quatro Navy Seal Join Date: May 2013 Posts: 6,772 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	As a military kind of thinker, opposed to a political thinker, I say we call their bluff ... China won't do a thing or risk war themselves. They won't unleash their nuclear arsenal of weapons to defend poor little NK. They will of course protest along with Russia and Trump will assert that that NK had it coming due to it's constant disregard for peace talks to put their weapons program on hold. Gentlemen war is on the way ... I am sure of that. Before they have the ability to strike back in the numbers game of deadly nuclear tipped missiles. This war is between good and evil ... it is good to stop evil before they can strike back and hurt the mother land. One or two EMP strikes over NK should take out any accuracy of their launching a second attack. __________________ pla•teau noun a relatively stable level, period, or condition a level of attainment or achievement Lord help me get to the next plateau ..

11-05-17, 02:19 PM	#814
mapuc Fleet Admiral Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Denmark Posts: 17,905 Downloads: 37 Uploads: 0	One thing I know for sure....China will never approve such action from USA. Markus

11-05-17, 02:20 PM	#815
Delgard Skipper Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: AZ & DC Posts: 487 Downloads: 48 Uploads: 0	It is good to have doves and hawks. Obviously, the SEC State talks diplomacy and the JCS talks destroying the threat. The VEEP talks stability and, well, POTUS talks a tough position. Their seems to be a long pause. If the U.S. rhetoric keeps NK from doing what they are doing for 4 years, that will be seen as an effective strategy. NK needs to test missiles and warheads; without that, they slow down and permit China, Japan, and SK to better prepare. I see it as NK's turn.

11-05-17, 03:04 PM	#819
Delgard Skipper Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: AZ & DC Posts: 487 Downloads: 48 Uploads: 0	Way down below China was discussed on and off. For me, in learning, I think China has drifted a bit from just arbitrarily coming to NK's defense. They have drifted towards their own agenda since KJU took over. I think they see the world in color as compared to NKs black and white. Just me.

11-05-17, 03:08 PM	#821
Delgard Skipper Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: AZ & DC Posts: 487 Downloads: 48 Uploads: 0	...(and so the CJCS speaks...)

11-05-17, 06:47 PM	#823
Delgard Skipper Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: AZ & DC Posts: 487 Downloads: 48 Uploads: 0	I saw a nighttime satellite view of NK. Do they even have electricity?

11-06-17, 08:06 AM	#825
Delgard Skipper Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: AZ & DC Posts: 487 Downloads: 48 Uploads: 0	Just saw this in the news...I have thought on it often in the past. "If the Pentagon wants to secure all of North Korea's nuclear weapons in the event of a conflict, it's going to have to send in lots of ground troops to get the job done. That's the conclusion shared with lawmakers in a letter from vice director of the Joint Staff Rear Adm. Michael J. Dumont. Dumont also writes that North Korea would also consider the use of biological and chemical weapons in the event of a war with the United States." Reason is that if U.S. forces flow into SK, those arrival sites (ports/airfields) would be prime targets for short/medium range missile(s)