Is that a missile in your pocket or wait its a missile

[Knut]

If stuff goes down and you live-blog it on the forum for us ?

[FFR]

I'm heading to China in 5 weeks! Although I've somewhat assured myself that I'll be safe because NK isn't actually crazy enough to start something, between this and bird flu - I'm starting to wonder about the whole safety thing!

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by me_dennis

i might be heading to Seoul in September, but with all this news about possible attack, should I reconsider?

I think you'll be fine. By September, I think things will have played out.

But like someone else mentioned, cancellation insurance would be a good idea if you didn't already.

[T@T]

Hmmmm

The Pentagon's intelligence arm has assessed with "moderate confidence" that North Korea has the ability to deliver a nuclear weapon with a ballistic missile, though the reliability is believed to be "low."

Reliability is apparently a reference to the accuracy of the missiles.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, who was testifying before the House committee, appeared to be caught off guard when asked by Lamborn whether he agreed with the DIA assessment.

"Well, I haven't seen it," Dempsey replied. "And you said it's not publicly released, so I -- I choose not to comment on it."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/11/world/...html?hpt=hp_t2

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by T@T

Hmmmm


http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/11/world/...html?hpt=hp_t2

The Pentagon's intelligence arm has assessed with "moderate confidence" that North Korea has the ability to deliver a nuclear weapon with a ballistic missile, though the reliability is believed to be "low."

Reliability is apparently a reference to the accuracy of the missiles.

So . . . . they can get sorta close with a nuclear bomb?

Sounds like the old horseshoes and hand grenades thing.

Cowperson

[Regulator75]

Perhaps this belongs here too.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

So . . . . they can get sorta close with a nuclear bomb?

Sounds like the old horseshoes and hand grenades thing.

Cowperson

I guess...but a month ago they were sure they were 2 years away from a delivery system at all. whats next? "we think they can only hit within 20 miles of a target."

Fact is these nut case country's shouldn't have a nuclear bomb at all.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by T@T

I guess...but a month ago they were sure they were 2 years away from a delivery system at all. whats next? "we think they can only hit within 20 miles of a target."

Fact is these nut case country's shouldn't have a nuclear bomb at all.

America has a long history of giving their enemies the time to arm themselves with nuclear bombs plus delivery systems capable of hitting the USA.

Too much Mr Nice Guy.

Cowperson

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

America has a long history of giving their enemies the time to arm themselves with nuclear bombs plus delivery systems capable of hitting the USA.

Too much Mr Nice Guy.

Cowperson

The alternative is the end of the world due to nuclear war so good on them for being "Mr. Nice Guy" and having some tolerance.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

The alternative is the end of the world due to nuclear war so good on them for being "Mr. Nice Guy" and having some tolerance.

You didn't really think that through.

It is curious to ponder a world today where Russia and China, as examples, never acquired nuclear weapons, cowed by a more aggressive America in the mid-40's to mid-50's. That doesn't have to mean nuclear weapons would have actually had to be used to achieve that result . . . . . although i could see a few nearby demonstrations as evidence of will and future intent to get the result.

Re-writing history . . . . .

The North Korea and Iran situations are following a pattern.

Cowperson

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

You didn't really think that through.

It is curious to ponder a world today where Russia and China, as examples, never acquired nuclear weapons, cowed by a more aggressive America in the mid-40's to mid-50's. That doesn't have to mean nuclear weapons would have actually had to be used to achieve that result . . . . . although i could see a few nearby demonstrations as evidence of will and future intent to get the result.

Re-writing history . . . . .

The North Korea and Iran situations are following a pattern.

Cowperson

That's quite the stretch. Suggesting the US should've or could've applied the necessary pressure to prevent China or the Soviets from acquiring a nuclear weapon is a little ridiculous.

Pakistan/Iran/Iraq/South Africa/Israel maybe. To me, even India falls into that "what are you going to do?" category.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

You didn't really think that through.

It is curious to ponder a world today where Russia and China, as examples, never acquired nuclear weapons, cowed by a more aggressive America in the mid-40's to mid-50's. That doesn't have to mean nuclear weapons would have actually had to be used to achieve that result . . . . . although i could see a few nearby demonstrations as evidence of will and future intent to get the result.

Re-writing history . . . . .

The North Korea and Iran situations are following a pattern.

Cowperson

Well realistically, once Germany fell and the allies and Soviets divvied up their scientists the game was already over. The USSR had the means to make and develop their own bomb shortly after the US and the US was in no position to try and take on the Russians. Russia gave the bomb to China and everything trickled down from there. I really don't see how the US could have done anything to stop the Russians.

[CaptainCrunch]

Well, if Curtis LemAy had anything to say about it.

Killing Japanese didn't bother me very much at that time... I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.... Every soldier thinks something of the moral aspects of what he is doing. But all war is immoral and if you let that bother you, you're not a good soldier.

...Native annalists may look sadly back from the future on that period when we had the atomic bomb and the Russians didn't. Or when the Russians had aquired (through connivance and treachery of Westerns with warped minds) the atomic bomb - and yet still didn't have any stockpile of the weapons. That was the era when we might have destroyed Russia completely and not even skinned our elbows doing it.

China has The Bomb. [...] Sometime in the future--25, 50, 75 years hence--what will the situation be like then? By that time the Chinese will have the capability of delivery too. That's the reason some schools of thinking don't rule out a destruction of the Chinese military potential before the situation grows worse than it is today. It's bad enough now.

If I see that the Russians are amassing their planes for an attack, I'm going to knock the #### out of them before they take off the ground.



I think there are many times when it would be most efficient to use nuclear weapons. However, the public opinion in this country and throughout the world throw up their hands in horror when you mention nuclear weapons, just because of the propaganda that's been fed to them.

I don't mind being called tough, because in this racket it's tough guys who lead the survivors.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Well, if Curtis LemAy had anything to say about it.

Killing Japanese didn't bother me very much at that time... I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.... Every soldier thinks something of the moral aspects of what he is doing. But all war is immoral and if you let that bother you, you're not a good soldier.

...Native annalists may look sadly back from the future on that period when we had the atomic bomb and the Russians didn't. Or when the Russians had aquired (through connivance and treachery of Westerns with warped minds) the atomic bomb - and yet still didn't have any stockpile of the weapons. That was the era when we might have destroyed Russia completely and not even skinned our elbows doing it.

China has The Bomb. [...] Sometime in the future--25, 50, 75 years hence--what will the situation be like then? By that time the Chinese will have the capability of delivery too. That's the reason some schools of thinking don't rule out a destruction of the Chinese military potential before the situation grows worse than it is today. It's bad enough now.

If I see that the Russians are amassing their planes for an attack, I'm going to knock the #### out of them before they take off the ground.



I think there are many times when it would be most efficient to use nuclear weapons. However, the public opinion in this country and throughout the world throw up their hands in horror when you mention nuclear weapons, just because of the propaganda that's been fed to them.

I don't mind being called tough, because in this racket it's tough guys who lead the survivors.

Cap, I love your arguments and knowledge of politics and war, but when has the "strike first, ask questions later" approach ever worked for the Americans? Both Vietnam and Iraq were of this nature, and the ideological objectives were never really solved in this manner.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Cap, I love your arguments and knowledge of politics and war, but when has the "strike first, ask questions later" approach ever worked for the Americans? Both Vietnam and Iraq were of this nature, and the ideological objectives were never really solved in this manner.

Its levels of degree, I posted Lemay stuff because first of all the guy was a hyper aggressive cold warrior with a streak of insanity a mile wide.

you could argue that from the late 20th century through to today, the whole first strike ask questions mentality of the U.S. has been to a point half a$$ed.

The air campaigns in Vietman were carefully planned to avoid civilian casualties where they could, same with the operations over Iraq.

When the troops were deployed in the first Desert Storm they showed a lot of restraint in terms of in the end even reducing military casualties. Helicopters taking prisoners was unheard of.

When you say Strike first and ask questions later. I think you have it backwards. The American sentiment and especially with the politicization of the senior levels of military commands means that they're not thinking as much of the sheer application of force and more about the strategic application of force to force your enemy to surrender as opposed to the overwhelming application of force to destroy your enemy force him to submit and ensure no future threat.

A lot of the leaders that came out of the Second World War were hardened by war and fearful of the next threat and the application of power to prevent the next step.

Thats why you had Lemay proposing to boil the oceans to deal with the soviet submarine threat and first strike Russia before they got their bearings and became a greater threat. You had Douglas MacArthur advocating the nuking of the Chinese as a valid strategy to not only prevent Chinese intervention and resupply but to reduce the potential threat of a strong Chinese Nation.

I guess if you were going to turn your phrase, these men strongly believe that the formula was Strike First, destroy your enemy completely, let historians debate the questions 100 years from now.

I'm not advocating any such strategy anymore, its effectiveness while possibly highly effective in the early days after WW2, probably wouldn't be as effective now.

But we've never ever seen a true strike first with the intent of winning a war with no consideration of the politics or fallout.

As many old vets have said about Vietnam.

"If we had kept the politics and politicians out of the war and fought it to win and not to tie, we probably would have won that war fairly easily"

Oh and by the way, one drunken night, and I can't find the quote, Lemay advocated dropping a nuke on the UN building.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Well realistically, once Germany fell and the allies and Soviets divvied up their scientists the game was already over. The USSR had the means to make and develop their own bomb shortly after the US and the US was in no position to try and take on the Russians. Russia gave the bomb to China and everything trickled down from there. I really don't see how the US could have done anything to stop the Russians.

Well, ruthlessly obliterating them would have been one option. Don't say there wasn't at least one thing you could do.

Truthfully, 1) the American public was tired of war and no one could see extent of the future antagonism between capitalism and communism and 2) America didn't have enough nuclear bombs to be thorough enough - a threat is no threat unless you can carry it through.

I've actually argued before that nuclear weapons rendered the world a safer place, that the big powers, for the first time in history, no longer dared going to war directly, instead relying on proxy wars like Vietnam and Latin America.

The world today, in fact, has never been a safer place, with the fewest conflicts in history on a relative basis. A lot of that because the major players don't dare war with each other.

Through the 70's and 80's, I never worried about nuclear war. There's no upside to it for either party.

It really is crazy little unpredictable a-hole countries like Iran or NK that you should worry about. Is it really a good idea to let them arm themselves or should you go a lot tough on them? Real tough.

Cowperson

[nik-]

Ahh Bombs Away LeMay. If him and Patton had more clout, Russian might be an extinct language.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Well, ruthlessly obliterating them would have been one option. Don't say there wasn't at least one thing you could do.

Some members of the American and British leadership strongly advocated rearming the Germans once they surrendered and the government fell and turning them loose on the Soviets with American troops and assets to either destroy Stalin and his regime or push the Soviets back past their original borders. The Nuke option was non existent at the time because of the expense in terms of exotic materials and bomb materials, and the fairly inefficient manner that the American's were making these bombs, their stockpile of fissionable materials was close to exhausted.

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Truthfully, 1) the American public was tired of war and no one could see extent of the future antagonism between capitalism and communism and 2) America didn't have enough nuclear bombs to be thorough enough - a threat is no threat unless you can carry it through.

America was tired of the war and deeply split by the time it ended, mainly because some questioned the aliies unconditional surrender policy when it came to dealing with the Axis powers. However there was already a perception that the next enemy was the Soviet Union and Communism especially with Churchill stiring that pot heavily. Most American's realized that the Soviets were going to be a problem.

Originally Posted by Cowperson

I've actually argued before that nuclear weapons rendered the world a safer place, that the big powers, for the first time in history, no longer dared going to war directly, instead relying on proxy wars like Vietnam and Latin America.

MAD for lack of a better term did work. It was a horrible concept but it worked. I was watching the excellent Doctor Strangelove the other night and going back and forth to my tablet looking up the close calls that almost lead to end of civilization and there were a lot of them that were intentional and accidental and just plain fortunate (radio failure in the Cuban Missile Crisis). At the end of the day the biggest threat to mankind was the Ballistic Missile Defense on both sides combined with the reduction of Nuclear Arms under the various treaties that could lead to a nuclear war becoming winnable.

The world today, in fact, has never been a safer place, with the fewest conflicts in history on a relative basis. A lot of that because the major players don't dare war with each other.

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Through the 70's and 80's, I never worried about nuclear war. There's no upside to it for either party.

I think you and I are the same age or in that area, so we weren't around in the shakey late 50's and 60's where people were building fallout shelters and students practices taking shelter. In my time in the military we weren't necessarily frightened of the Bear even through we always wargamed against the nation of Redistan. By that point the Russians while still formidable had lost their reputation as 10 foot tall unbeatable Soviet New Men, a title they had earned against Germany and lost in Afghanistan. We didn't have the same fear of thousands of Soviet Tanks rushing through the Fulda Gap due to a mis-understanding, while thousands of Soviet long range bombers ranged over their enemies and the Soviet Submarine threat starved us to death.

By the point when you could start to see the crumble the worry was always, would they go quietly into the night, or in one last desperate flex of muscle would they throw all their cards on the table?

Originally Posted by Cowperson

It really is crazy little unpredictable a-hole countries like Iran or NK that you should worry about. Is it really a good idea to let them arm themselves or should you go a lot tough on them? Real tough.

Cowperson

Those -hole countries are the great destabilizers in their regions, they're unpredictable, they are exporting either technology or in the case of Iran terrorists or aid and comfort to those terrorists.

I don't fear North Korea as much because despite their bluster at the end of the day that government has always shown itself to be concerned about self preservation of power and because of that there's a rationality to their irrational manner.

Iran is a different kettle of fish to me because of the theological aspect and the fact that they are run by a complete banana head and that they work so closely with terrorist groups, and their main enemy transcends politics and involves god. While I don't think that Iran would launch a missile at Israel, the likely scenario is to either provide terrorists with the technology or the terrorists "Steal"materials or something else from Iran and use it on Israel which leaves Iran in the clear.

Goofy I know but possible.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by nik-

Ahh Bombs Away LeMay. If him and Patton had more clout, Russian might be an extinct

Add Bull Halsey to that list,when he heard about Pearl Harbor on the bridge of the Enterprise he immediately ordered the Enterprise to sink any shipping sighted, shoot down any plane encountered." Protested his operations officer: "Goddammit, Admiral, you can't start a private war of your own! Who's going to take the responsibility?" Said Halsey: "I'll take it! If anything gets in my way, we'll shoot first and argue afterwards."

At the end of the War after Japan surrendered and Bull was still losing sleep over Kamikaze pilots he sent out the following to his fleet

Cessation of hostilities.
War is over.
If any Japanese airplanes appear, shoot them down in a friendly way.[34]