|
Spiffster posted:I look away from this thread for one day... ONE DAY The refreshment table is here, and the fallout shelter to your left! 
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 07:10 |
|
|
Pellisworth posted:This isn't anything to be worried about in particular. In recent years B-1s have only been deployed to Guam (for training and show of force like this) and to Qatar (for bombing the Middle East). In fact the weapons officer I know just got back from a Guam rotation a few months ago, it's standard. it would go bad in that they have a "proper" military anti-air and you can't just put a bomber up in the sky yes the air force, assuming they aren't caught by surprise, will still neuter NK completely within two days, if not petty hours. North Korea has always been a mixture of 'How much can we shift here before hand without riling them up,' 'How fast can we knock everything down to prevent damage to South Korea,' and 'What do we do after'
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:He looks like a loving ghoul. That's an insult to my people smoothskin.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
i can't imagine any scenario where the united states stops north korea from obtaining icbms without resorting to military force, especially given the current state of the state department that doesn't mean trump will resort to military force, but it forces the white house to pick between two extremely bad options i also worry that the possibility of a nuclear north korea and an unreliable united states will encourage japan and south korea to pursue nuclear weapons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:The thing I'm most worried about is someone in Trump's administration convincing him that he can launch a limited airstrike on North Korea like he did on Syria and the situation escalating wildly out of control from there. Yeah I'd agree, more likely cruise missiles rather than bombers in the air, but my biggest fear is Trump deciding to launch conventional strikes against NK nuclear sites. Who the gently caress knows how things will escalate from there. South Korea, Japan, and China certainly wouldn't be happy. Gamerofthegame posted:it would go bad in that they have a "proper" military anti-air and you can't just put a bomber up in the sky yes Have we learned nothing from Iraq and Afghanistan misadventures? You're grossly underestimating how bloody and lengthy a bombing campaign would be. You're also forgetting we're engaged in bombing the Middle East, too. You can't just throw the full weight of the Air Force against NK, it's already got its hands very full elsewhere. Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 02:56 on Aug 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Yeah I'd agree, more likely cruise missiles rather than bombers in the air, but my biggest fear is Trump deciding to launch conventional strikes against NK nuclear sites. Who the gently caress knows how things will escalate from there. South Korea, Japan, and China certainly wouldn't be happy. Well its a very good thing that we've dumped hundreds of billions of dollars into a new generation of capable and versatile fighters . . . Oh
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
mod sassinator posted:I doubt that would help--our nukes aren't just one warhead on one missile that you can track right to the end point. We pack hundreds of mini warheads into one missile and they launch out when it's in space. This way you can target multiple cities and your enemy doesn't know which one until the very last minute before the warhead hits. It also makes it much, much harder to shoot down our nukes as you're targeting lots of little things vs. one big missile: Hundreds? The gently caress are you talking about? The Peacekeeper had 10 RVs, and it's retired. Modern Minuteman missiles hold 1 (used to be 3), a direct result of the START treaty. Tiny Timbs fucked around with this message at 03:00 on Aug 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
3 Nuclear missiles are more than enough.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:Well its a very good thing that we've dumped hundreds of billions of dollars into a new generation of capable and versatile fighters The AF would really love more money to maintain and upgrade their existing fleet but that doesn't fellate the MIC quite as vigorously. The B-1 weapons officer I mentioned just had his squadron's bombers upgraded to a modern avionics and computing/targeting/etc package. Until I think 2014 the B-1s were still using late '80s tech in the cockpit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
Didn't Scaramuchi say the exact same thing?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
TheGreasyStrangler posted:Hundreds? The gently caress are you talking about? The Peacekeeper had 10 RVs, and it's retired. Modern Minuteman missiles hold 1, a direct result of the START treaty. Yes, do you really think Wikipedia is going to be up to date with details of our modern nuclear arsenal? And we're not in the START treaty anymore after we built ABM tech. All that said if it came to it I guess they would probably just launch a few warheads on cruise missiles from a ship off the coast. It's not like NK has the power to stop even a cruise missile and it would be easier to show our allies where it's going.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
This has to be one of the most absurd little incidents I've ever read about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/895100336469397505
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
It's really loving weird to see someone saying something that literally every single person who hears it knows it is a lie, but they're still representing it as if they really believe it's true even though everyone knows he doesn't. It's a TV show made just for Trump and nobody else, but it's broadcasted to millions of people. Trump is getting Truman Show'd in a weird way, but that's mostly because he just gets rid of anyone who doesn't do that to him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
Spiffster posted:I look away from this thread for one day... ONE DAY At least the thread is more pleasant to read today than it was during yesterday's Democratic party purity test arguments. Here's my prediction: nothing is going to happen. Trump is just replying to North Korea in his usual fashion of clueless bluster; he doesn't have the guts or the attention span to actually start a war. I guarantee that there will be a dozen more statements like this during his presidency, each one being smaller news than the last, as the world acclimates itself to the fact that the president of the United States talks like this, but is always full of poo poo when it comes to following through.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
Well Mike Pence.. when a man and a woman love each other a whole lot..
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
honestly, same i am dangerously close to empathizing with pence
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
mod sassinator posted:I doubt that would help--our nukes aren't just one warhead on one missile that you can track right to the end point. We pack hundreds of mini warheads into one missile and they launch out when it's in space. This way you can target multiple cities and your enemy doesn't know which one until the very last minute before the warhead hits. It also makes it much, much harder to shoot down our nukes as you're targeting lots of little things vs. one big missile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle If I were a Russian or Chinese general and got that call I would immediately assume it's a bluff and launch in retaliation. Best case you call the bluff and have a counterattack before it's too late. Worst case instead of living with just the fallout of your neighbor getting nuked you live with the fallout of you and your neighbor getting nuked (but at least nuke your enemy too). Isn't that what nuclear subs are for? You don't lose your ability to have revenge, if we lied, then your subs surface and launch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
empty whippet box posted:It's really loving weird to see someone saying something that literally every single person who hears it knows it is a lie, but they're still representing it as if they really believe it's true even though everyone knows he doesn't. It's a TV show made just for Trump and nobody else, but it's broadcasted to millions of people. Trump is getting Truman Show'd in a weird way, but that's mostly because he just gets rid of anyone who doesn't do that to him. They are so totally engrossed in telling the lie no matter what the subject at hand is or what is said to them I just want someone to get weird with it. Like go from a totally normal political question to "Stephen what do you say to claims that President Strong Daddy will never give you his cummies?". Will they just robot their way through it, or will there be an actual human response?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/davidwright_cnn/status/894958338366214145 thread is amazing. gorka is loving insane.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
mod sassinator posted:Yes, do you really think Wikipedia is going to be up to date with details of our modern nuclear arsenal? And we're not in the START treaty anymore after we built ABM tech. The New START treaty lives on to this day. Are you just pulling poo poo out of your rear end? Also please explain what you think you're talking about by claiming that modern ICBMs hold hundreds of RVs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
Yeah, pretty sure that's the usual situation there. Like I was in Guam for just a day or so last year and saw B-1s. Not sure what this article is trying to say. "There are B-1s there now! And OK they have been for like a decade but we're reporting it anyway for some reason"? ReidRansom fucked around with this message at 03:13 on Aug 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
Chef Boyardeez Nuts posted:The U.S. was also totally committed to NATO. If North Korea officially joins the MAD club I wouldn't be surprised if Tokyo follows. Are you implying Tokyo would try to get nukes? Because I don't think you realize how hated nuclear weapons are in Japan. I mean, an Abe ministry might tell a majority of the country to go gently caress off, and develop them anyway, but his party would lose basically everything in any scenario short of NK actually attacking Japan and the U.S. not intervening.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
mod sassinator posted:Yes, do you really think Wikipedia is going to be up to date with details of our modern nuclear arsenal? It kind of is, but you can also consult NTI.org, FAS.org, or any number of arms control sources. They will all tell you the same thing that Wikipedia does: MIRV-ed missiles do not have "hundreds of mini-warheads" on them. quote:And we're not in the START treaty anymore after we built ABM tech. START I had nothing to do with ABMs. Are you thinking of the ABM Treaty, which we (foolishly) let lapse in 2002?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
well, if the all the population centers in the united states get nuked, i guess that's one way for the republicans to suppress the vote
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
Mike Pence shocked to learn he is the most sane person in this administration.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:Pretty sure that's the usual situation there. Like I was in Guam for just a day or so last year and saw B-1s. The media likes to report regular occurrences as though they are irregular because they want war. Remember when CNN reported Russian ships off the coast of Alaska or wherever shortly after the election? They are in that area often but they wanted to make it seem like the Russians were coming for us.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It kind of is, but you can also consult NTI.org, FAS.org, or any number of arms control sources. They will all tell you the same thing that Wikipedia does: MIRV-ed missiles do not have "hundreds of mini-warheads" on them. Russians also routinely and very openly inspect our nuclear facilities (and vice versa) as a result of the treaty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
Can someone soberly tell me what the risk to Japan is at this point? Like without references to world wars and seas of glass and exaggerations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:Can someone soberly tell me what the risk to Japan is at this point? Like without references to world wars and seas of glass and exaggerations. They're the most likely realistic target for North Korea other than Guam
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:honestly, same Remember that he voluntarily got into the car. Every time someone has asked him how he feels about it he's replied "Mr. Trump's Wild ride is great!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:They're the most likely realistic target for North Korea other than Guam Wouldn't they go after South Korea first?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:Can someone soberly tell me what the risk to Japan is at this point? Like without references to world wars and seas of glass and exaggerations. South Korea, Japan, and Guam are more likely to be attacked than the U.S. mainland. Hard to realistically say how close we are to war given the unpredictability and stupidity of the leaders on the American side.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
If we do a preemptive strike and Kim Jong Un dies, does North Korea immediately surrender? Or do they keep fighting?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:Wouldn't they go after South Korea first? Imagine they'd lash out in all directions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:Can someone soberly tell me what the risk to Japan is at this point? Like without references to world wars and seas of glass and exaggerations. At this point, very little. Kim may as well launch a nuke at the U.S.; it would have the same outcome for North Korea. Plus the Aegis BMD systems are considerably more effective than longer-range GMD systems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:If we do a preemptive strike and Kim Jong Un dies, does North Korea immediately surrender? Or do they keep fighting? I'd imagine that the military would take over and continue fighting
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
ponzicar posted:At least the thread is more pleasant to read today than it was during yesterday's Democratic party purity test arguments. This is pretty much it. NK knows that launching anything would end its regime, and they enjoy their power and high life too much to do that. But this is the way the game has been played for thirty years: they develop better weapons and make threats, the US threatens back, and then the USSR/China/Russia/US/South Korea steps in to offer food and resources to let the NK regime chug along for another five years. Remember when they shelled South Korean islands and killed a dozen people five years ago? They pulled the same "now we have a working nuke that we just might set off on the border we're so CRAZAY" before that and so on. The risk is that the orange man-boy decides that he needs to show strength through a stupid display which drives NK to respond with something horrible and it escalates, but you're assuming A) Donnie isn't a loving coward who will drop it when consequences are explained to him B) Donnie isn't loving lazy and will get distracted by other things C) the Pentagon allows an escalation that puts the tens of thousands of troops we have in the theater at stupid risk D) China/SK/Japan don't step in to de-escalate and E) Un's regime doesn't de-escalate to save itself and use that to leverage aid from China/SK/Japan. We're at no more risk than we always are that Donald is a stupid idiot who hits the nuke button by mistake, so settle down.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:Can someone soberly tell me what the risk to Japan is at this point? Like without references to world wars and seas of glass and exaggerations. There is a meaningful possibility that some conventional weapons are fired towards Japan, but it is unlikely this would be more than a token effort, because if it happens it's because things got hot and that means NK is going to very quickly have to throw everything it has at the South, and it will be losing massive amounts of hardware by the hour. There is an infinitesimally tiny, but non-zero, chance that they load a nuke onto a missile and fire it at Japan, but if they actually have the ability to do that it's vastly more likely to be flying towards the West Coast or to be used to try and gently caress up formations on land or at sea. In short, I wouldn't really worry, even if things get hot you'd have to be incredibly unlucky to get hurt if you're in Japan, as I believe a previous post of yours said. Your worst-case scenario is liable to be delays in flights because air travel is reduced or shut down temporarily.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 07:10 |
|
|
EugeneJ posted:If we do a preemptive strike and Kim Jong Un dies, does North Korea immediately surrender? Or do they keep fighting? They magically find Un's long lost brother and he gives a speech that encourages his people to see this through to the bitter end.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:22
|
|