-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Blast, Mushroom Cloud Reported in N. Korea
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
all of them? how many times in the last 3 years have our scientists discovered potential "life on earth ending" rocks only weeks or days before a near miss 😉 And to think that one so small that would only replicate the force of a nuclear blast would slip by...no, it could never happen
Darkhawk28
Diamond Member
Right now, what can the U.S. do about it without international support, no credibility, practically no funding and a lack of troops able to mobilize if neccessary?
Does it really matter at this point?
One way or another China stands in the way of a successful invasion of NK. Secondly, SK will have high casualties if a war breaks out. And Russia is too broke to sustain a long war. So they wont bother helping NK.
I'm not sure if there is a positve outcome here for the US.
One way or another China stands in the way of a successful invasion of NK. Secondly, SK will have high casualties if a war breaks out. And Russia is too broke to sustain a long war. So they wont bother helping NK.
I'm not sure if there is a positve outcome here for the US.
Darkhawk28
Diamond Member
Case of rum, case of rum, right?
The "chance" (by which I am assuming a time frame of after Dubya got elected, but prior to invading Iraq)we had of invading NK would have cost us, at the very least, Seoul. Unless you wish to advocate several pre-emptive nuclear strikes to wipe out the massive amount of artillery the north has aimed at Seoul. But then Seoul would be hit with some fall-out.
Or are you referring to the 1950's era chance?
alphatarget1
Diamond Member
we have the position of NK's artilliery positions right? take them out with tomahawks and bomb them with B52s. NK cannot resist an all out US invasion, their soldiers and civilians are starving to death.
Darkhawk28
Diamond Member
That might be a solution, but we don't have enough troops to be in Iraq, Afghanistan and Korea at the same time. We're already spread too thin as it is. That is IF NK feels froggy enough to risk that all-out invasion.
You really need to read up on a couple of things:
-The current US inventory of Tomahawks
-The number of artillery pieces NK has aimed at Seoul right now
-The viability of a huge, slow, high target such as the B-52 in a theatre of operations with plenty of SAMs on the ground.
It isnt that we could not take out NK's artillery pieces. It is that we couldnt get them all before they caused massive destruction in Seoul.
Look at alphatarget1's post and others like them. The logical course of action to attack would of been before North Korea got a nuke. Striking after they have a working nuke program and nukes is just plain stupid. If nothing could of been done prior to them having a nuke then nothing can be done after they have one as well. If you blame Clinton for not attacking then you would have to blame Bush as well. If you praise Clinton for not attacking then you need to praise Bush as well. Then again you can blame them both or praise them both if you are not a partisan.
alphatarget1
Diamond Member
Talk some sense into china and SK. China doesn't like NK believe it or not. There, manpower problem solved. We do the bombing, they do the invasion.
It's matter of time before NK gets some nukes and sells it to Osama. Too bad the Bush administration thought Iraq was a "bigger threat" when Iran and NK are preparing/already cranking out nukes.
alphatarget1
Diamond Member
tactical nukes come to mind... I don't think it's a good idea to use them.
I thought B-52s flew high enough that a lot of SAMs can't even reach them?
alphatarget1
Diamond Member
The point is that if Bush was such a great leader he would have addressed or attempted to address the situation after he took office. I'm not surprised that this appeasement of NK tyranny is still here and probably for many years to come. Labeling them as "axis of evil" doesn't count as addressing the problem.
Meanwhile, North Koreans are starving/dying/combination of both because their government spent all the money to develop nukes
:disgust::|
CycloWizard
Lifer
This is stated over and over again on this forum, but it simply isn't true. Including reserves, we have over 2 million uncommitted troops right now (uncommitted = not in Afghanistan or Iraq). NK has 1 million.
This I would argue with. The amount of firepower that our air force is capable of has not yet been glimpsed: Shock and Awe was a pittance relative to the damage that we could do in one minute's time if we unleashed what we've got, rather than making extremely precise attacks on specific buildings. S&A was very, very measured compared to what we're capable of and what you'd likely see in a NK situation. We've never used more than two B2s at a time - we have 20. Hopefully we never see all of them in use, because that will not be a happy day for anyone.
Anyone here can try to blame Bush for this as much as you want - no president has been able to crack NK, and every president has tried. NK developed nuclear technology to use as a bargaining chip - with it, they feel that the world will meet whatever demands they make rather than risking war. Unfortunately, NK has already established themselves as the world's technology clearing house - they'll sell missiles, missile tech, anything you want for $$$. How can you negotiate with a country that doesn't value human life and would easily risk an invasion just so they can flex their muscle?
Let's go back in time before the Iraq war. Do you honestly think we could give a good enough reason to attack North Korea? How many more liberals do you think would protest then? Why are we so afraid of North Korea having nukes? Is it because he would sell it to terrorists? If we stop North Korea from getting nukes is that curing the problem of terrorists? Why don't you stop it at the roots? Islam.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
