DPRK has Anthrax-tipped ICBMs and North Korean soldiers are immune to it

[Puffnstuff]

How many deaths later is the more important question. Powell claimed that he was wrong. He failed to admit that he lied. There is no honor left in him.

He did his job and when his conscience wouldn't allow him to continue he removed himself from that environment. I think he would've made a good president.

 

[conehead433]

OMFG! WMD's. We're all gonna die unless we allow the Almighty Orange Cheeto to completely and absolutely destroy NK. I think we've seen this movie before.

 

[fskimospy]

The dad started a war, the son started a cult, and his son is looking to further both. We are in total agreement that war will cost millions. It would be the most horrible loss of life in our lifetime and the implications would change the world for generations. The idea of the destruction is not going to be understood if/when it happens. I hope diplomacy can stop that from happening, but NK is pointing a gun at SK and the US and that trigger finger looks like its ready to go. Its also true that they are not willing to stop at keeping the US at bay. They already have enough to stop us from wanting to go in with a military. Even Bannon knew that NK was not going to get attacked because even before nukes they would kill so many SK people that it would be impossible. So why build nukes and why continue to provoke unless you will only stop at war.

This is inaccurate. The father started both the Korean War and the North Korean cult of personality. (the personality cult started in the 50's and 60's under Kim Il Sung) It became more outlandish under Kim Jong Il but it is at its core a Stalinesque personality cult.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_cult_of_personality

As for why they build nukes this is a good article. Basically it's for the same reasons I told you before, Qaddafi and Saddam didn't have nukes and look what happened to them.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/09/18/the-risk-of-nuclear-war-with-north-korea

No, it does not make sense. The goal is top keep power and keep other countries out. That is accomplished with the force they have before nukes. So long as they can 10 million + without nukes, nobody wants to go into NK and have that blood. Yet, they are continuing to build nukes and provoke far more than the US. What they want is more than what they have. So long as that is true, they will grow their threat.

I see no evidence of this. Their intentions have been extremely clear and consistent for decades now and I see no reason to believe they have changed. Nuclear weapons ensure regime survival in a way conventional weapons never could, especially if they have the ability to strike the US. We are far less likely to gamble with American lives than we are Japanese or Korean lives. It's common sense.

Think of it like this... Kim is seen as a god but he knows he is not. So when he is on his death bed, will enough believe in him when he gives his dying wish to launch the bombs?

So why didn't Kim Jong Il start a war when he was dying? Or Kim Il Sung for that matter?

 

[FIVR]

He doesn't know anything except that "both sides do it". That's realibrad's thesis in every single post he has ever made on this forum. Paragraphs and paragraphs of "both sides"-ism. What a waste of space.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Why is any compromise with a dictator always Automatic Hitler?

We don't have a good option for destroying him militarily. Once you accept that the only question is what other options we have. Keeping him quiet through what are (to us) trivial sums of money and supplies in exchange for good behavior is simply smart foreign policy. Trump, unfortunately, isn't really into smart foreign policy.

How about a hundred million a week? Then Iran can ask for twice that. Then other nations have motivation to gain nukes and blackmail.

There is no good solution and if his behavior turns bad?

There's a bad moon on the rise.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Checkmate, Mattis.

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-...und-to-have-anthrax-antibodies/7791514299323/

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/1...ns-testing-anthrax-onto-icbm-report-says.html



Somebody send that chubby boy his food and economic aid. Fill a boat with OLED TVs, Xboxes, MacBooks, and put Dennis Rodman on it and send it straight up to Wonsan and let's all just hope to God that it makes Kim happy enough that he doesn't kill every last American in southeast Asia.

I think you should personally deliver them to your Dear Leader.

 

[realibrad]

This is inaccurate. The father started both the Korean War and the North Korean cult of personality. (the personality cult started in the 50's and 60's under Kim Il Sung) It became more outlandish under Kim Jong Il but it is at its core a Stalinesque personality cult.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_cult_of_personality

As for why they build nukes this is a good article. Basically it's for the same reasons I told you before, Qaddafi and Saddam didn't have nukes and look what happened to them.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/09/18/the-risk-of-nuclear-war-with-north-korea




I see no evidence of this. Their intentions have been extremely clear and consistent for decades now and I see no reason to believe they have changed. Nuclear weapons ensure regime survival in a way conventional weapons never could, especially if they have the ability to strike the US. We are far less likely to gamble with American lives than we are Japanese or Korean lives. It's common sense.



So why didn't Kim Jong Il start a war when he was dying? Or Kim Il Sung for that matter?

So in your view Nukes are to do what? In my view, NK is holding onto power by holding millions of lives as hostage. SK is held hostage without nukes, even Bannon knew this. If I understand you correctly, nukes further the number of people held hostage. What I dont understand is why you think that holding SK hostage was not enough to ensure power. Other dictators had no such leverage that NK holds, and they were overthrown.

So why is holding SK without nukes not enough?

 

[realibrad]

He doesn't know anything except that "both sides do it". That's realibrad's thesis in every single post he has ever made on this forum. Paragraphs and paragraphs of "both sides"-ism. What a waste of space.

What both sides is there to this?

 

[fskimospy]

So in your view Nukes are to do what? In my view, NK is holding onto power by holding millions of lives as hostage. SK is held hostage without nukes, even Bannon knew this. If I understand you correctly, nukes further the number of people held hostage. What I dont understand is why you think that holding SK hostage was not enough to ensure power. Other dictators had no such leverage that NK holds, and they were overthrown.

So why is holding SK without nukes not enough?

The power that truly threatens North Korea is the United States, not South Korea. Betting that you can deter the United States forever by threatening one of its allies is a very dangerous game because what if one day the US doesn't consider South Korea such a great ally or so important anymore? The best and only surefire (well, nearly surefire) deterrent is to be able to threaten your adversary directly.

 

[realibrad]

The power that truly threatens North Korea is the United States, not South Korea. Betting that you can deter the United States forever by threatening one of its allies is a very dangerous game because what if one day the US doesn't consider South Korea such a great ally or so important anymore? The best and only surefire (well, nearly surefire) deterrent is to be able to threaten your adversary directly.

And yet we have stood buy for a long time under the threat of SKs deaths. For this whole time, the deaths of millions has long been more than enough. I think that what NK is doing now is showing that if left alone, they will become a bigger threat and more of the international community is getting worried about NK. Don't get me wrong, Trump will justify anything he does as "needed" even if its the spark of literally 10s of millions dead. But if NK wants to keep power, they are going about it in the wrong way. The US will not take on NK because its not like the others and we do not want to be responsible for that amount of blood.

What Kim wants is to be unchecked and internationally that is not accepted pre or post Trump. All they are doing now is making it easier to justify.

I will say that the though of the amount of life that would be lost really does make my stomach turn. It physically makes me feel sick if I think on it too long.

 

[fskimospy]

And yet we have stood buy for a long time under the threat of SKs deaths. For this whole time, the deaths of millions has long been more than enough. I think that what NK is doing now is showing that if left alone, they will become a bigger threat and more of the international community is getting worried about NK. Don't get me wrong, Trump will justify anything he does as "needed" even if its the spark of literally 10s of millions dead. But if NK wants to keep power, they are going about it in the wrong way. The US will not take on NK because its not like the others and we do not want to be responsible for that amount of blood.

What Kim wants is to be unchecked and internationally that is not accepted pre or post Trump. All they are doing now is making it easier to justify.

I will say that the though of the amount of life that would be lost really does make my stomach turn. It physically makes me feel sick if I think on it too long.

Sure, but from North Korea's perspective why on earth would you gamble your entire national survival on the idea that because the US was unwilling to destroy you because of South Korea today that they will be similarly unwilling tomorrow? The US would certainly never accept that sort of guarantee from a third party so why would we expect other countries to?

 

[realibrad]

Sure, but from North Korea's perspective why on earth would you gamble your entire national survival on the idea that because the US was unwilling to destroy you because of South Korea today that they will be similarly unwilling tomorrow? The US would certainly never accept that sort of guarantee from a third party so why would we expect other countries to?

Because the only thing holding the US back up until now is the international (including the US) distaste of the amount that would be killed. At some point if the international community see NK as a large enough threat they will justify going in because the total lives lost in the short run will outweigh the long run costs. If the goal is to ensure their power, then you want to go past the amount needed, but not so far as to seem too crazy to let stay. Pre nukes the US is safe. If the US feels like there is a real threat, we will strike, so why directly point a gun at us? Have the gun, show you can use the gun, but dont point it at us and say you are not only willing, but that you want to use it.

 

[fskimospy]

Because the only thing holding the US back up until now is the international (including the US) distaste of the amount that would be killed. At some point if the international community see NK as a large enough threat they will justify going in because the total lives lost in the short run will outweigh the long run costs. If the goal is to ensure their power, then you want to go past the amount needed, but not so far as to seem too crazy to let stay. Pre nukes the US is safe. If the US feels like there is a real threat, we will strike, so why directly point a gun at us? Have the gun, show you can use the gun, but dont point it at us and say you are not only willing, but that you want to use it.

So why didn't we annihilate the Soviet Union?

 

[realibrad]

So why didn't we annihilate the Soviet Union?

Different situation completely. A better comparison would be Vietnam. We could have gone in and firebombed the entire place, yet we did not. The reason for that was people around the world would be livid. The reason we let ourselves lose was because of that constraint.

So, let me ask you this, why does the US not go into other countries that do not have nukes? If the only thing stopping the US was is the fear of destruction, then why do we not wipe out those that do not have the ability to defend themselves?

 

[Victorian Gray]

It's really rather amazing how many folks living in the richest and most militarily powerful nation in the world seem terrified by one of the smallest, poorest and weakest nations in the world.

 

[fskimospy]

Different situation completely. A better comparison would be Vietnam. We could have gone in and firebombed the entire place, yet we did not. The reason for that was people around the world would be livid. The reason we let ourselves lose was because of that constraint.

No, comparing a non-nuclear country with no ability to harm the US mainland is not a better comparison than a nuclear country with the ability to harm the US mainland. That's ridiculous.

You are claiming that North Korea's newfound ability to threaten the US mainland makes it more likely we will destroy them. I would argue that if North Korea has a credible threat to harm the US mainland that makes us less likely to destroy them. The main threat to North Korea would be in the interim period where the US is unsure as to their capabilities and is somehow scared enough to launch a preemptive strike. After that time has passed they are golden and have basically permanent security. Who doesn't want that?

So, let me ask you this, why does the US not go into other countries that do not have nukes? If the only thing stopping the US was is the fear of destruction, then why do we not wipe out those that do not have the ability to defend themselves?

That makes no sense. I didn't say the only thing stopping the US from destroying the rest of the countries of the world was fear of destruction, I said that making the US fear destruction is an excellent way to get the US to not destroy you. There are plenty of others like being our ally. Failing being allied with us, a strong nuclear deterrent works pretty well. (you could argue it works much better in the long term considering Iraq was once an ally. Oops for them!)

 

[realibrad]

No, comparing a non-nuclear country with no ability to harm the US mainland is not a better comparison than a nuclear country with the ability to harm the US mainland. That's ridiculous.

You are claiming that North Korea's newfound ability to threaten the US mainland makes it more likely we will destroy them. I would argue that if North Korea has a credible threat to harm the US mainland that makes us less likely to destroy them. The main threat to North Korea would be in the interim period where the US is unsure as to their capabilities and is somehow scared enough to launch a preemptive strike. After that time has passed they are golden and have basically permanent security. Who doesn't want that?



That makes no sense. I didn't say the only thing stopping the US from destroying the rest of the countries of the world was fear of destruction, I said that making the US fear destruction is an excellent way to get the US to not destroy you. There are plenty of others like being our ally. Failing being allied with us, a strong nuclear deterrent works pretty well. (you could argue it works much better in the long term considering Iraq was once an ally. Oops for them!)

But there is a flaw there. NK is a long way off from doing anything other than damage. We will shoot down some of what comes in which means NK will have to shoot multiple rockets at us. They will not have that ability for at least a few years. So the US has two options. Hope that diplomacy can stop NK from gaining that ability, or start a conflict that we will win absolutely but cost millions of lives in the short term. With the way NK is acting, the US will not allow NK to become that full threat. The US will go into NK to prevent NK from gaining the ability to damage the US to the point of losing its position.

Ask yourself this. If you knew diplomacy 100% could not work, would you be willing to see what NK does, or would you strike? I think we both agree that diplomacy should be pushed because fuck if we cant stop this from getting worse. But if NK is not yet at the level to break the US, then how would it not be justified to prevent NK from gaining that ability. No US means Russia and China expand.

 

[Puffnstuff]

It's really rather amazing how many folks living in the richest and most militarily powerful nation in the world seem terrified by one of the smallest, poorest and weakest nations in the world.

A nuke is a nuke no matter whether the launcher is rich or poor and it will still do the same deed at the receiving end.

 

[cytg111]

Checkmate, Mattis.

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-...und-to-have-anthrax-antibodies/7791514299323/

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/1...ns-testing-anthrax-onto-icbm-report-says.html



Somebody send that chubby boy his food and economic aid. Fill a boat with OLED TVs, Xboxes, MacBooks, and put Dennis Rodman on it and send it straight up to Wonsan and let's all just hope to God that it makes Kim happy enough that he doesn't kill every last American in southeast Asia.

Checkmate, Mattis.

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-...und-to-have-anthrax-antibodies/7791514299323/

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/1...ns-testing-anthrax-onto-icbm-report-says.html



Somebody send that chubby boy his food and economic aid. Fill a boat with OLED TVs, Xboxes, MacBooks, and put Dennis Rodman on it and send it straight up to Wonsan and let's all just hope to God that it makes Kim happy enough that he doesn't kill every last American in southeast Asia.

Anthrax on ICBMs.. Soldiers immune.
I dont get it..
Unless of course they anticipate the missles blow up on the ramp and immunity thus protects those that dont get eliminated in the initial blast... Again with a confidence like that in their own strike capability theyre likely not to launch anything... This story makes zero sense.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Anthrax on ICBMs.. Soldiers immune.

I found a scholarly article on natural and artificial immunity to anthrax.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/462489?redirect=true

Then I found something at the CDC on the use of the vaccine in the U.S.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr4915a1.htm

 

[fskimospy]

But there is a flaw there. NK is a long way off from doing anything other than damage. We will shoot down some of what comes in which means NK will have to shoot multiple rockets at us. They will not have that ability for at least a few years. So the US has two options. Hope that diplomacy can stop NK from gaining that ability, or start a conflict that we will win absolutely but cost millions of lives in the short term. With the way NK is acting, the US will not allow NK to become that full threat. The US will go into NK to prevent NK from gaining the ability to damage the US to the point of losing its position.

Our BMD systems are very, very bad. It's unlikely they will be of much use against even a relatively unsophisticated actor like North Korea. As I've argued for before though, we should be furiously working to improve our boost phase intercept capability as North Korea is a perfect candidate for it. (maybe the only good candidate)

As for the US and North Korea there is a third and frankly much better option: let North Korea gain that capability and continue to maintain the status quo on the peninsula. Saying that to avoid a nuclear war in the future we need to start one now is not convincing to me.

Ask yourself this. If you knew diplomacy 100% could not work, would you be willing to see what NK does, or would you strike? I think we both agree that diplomacy should be pushed because fuck if we cant stop this from getting worse. But if NK is not yet at the level to break the US, then how would it not be justified to prevent NK from gaining that ability. No US means Russia and China expand.

But we don't know that diplomacy won't work. In fact if anything the available evidence shows it works quite well. There's been peace on the Korean peninsula for 60 years or so, after all.

 

[fskimospy]

I found a scholarly article on natural and artificial immunity to anthrax.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/462489?redirect=true

Whatever, I got my shots when I was in the Navy. Bring on the anthrax!

(assuming they are still good. oops.)

 

[FIVR]

Anthrax on ICBMs.. Soldiers immune.
I dont get it..
Unless of course they anticipate the missles blow up on the ramp and immunity thus protects those that dont get eliminated in the initial blast... Again with a confidence like that in their own strike capability theyre likely not to launch anything... This story makes zero sense.

Their missiles have anthrax warheads and their soldiers are immune to it, probably because they've already been given a vaccine. That means they could launch hundreds of strikes all over south korea while simultaneously launching an invasion with their millions of ground troops and not worry about losing a single soldier to the effects of their own weapons.

What's so hard to understand? It's checkmate. We have nothing to counter this and the our main hope has been to shoot down the few missiles on which he could put a nuke. Now we have to worry about every single theater ballistic missile (of which they have thousands) containing anthrax and we can't even be sure they won't strike the DMZ directly even though they have their own troops there.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Whatever, I got my shots when I was in the Navy. Bring on the anthrax!

(assuming they are still good. oops.)

It says that chickens are immune to it so DT should be good to go.

 

[realibrad]

Our BMD systems are very, very bad. It's unlikely they will be of much use against even a relatively unsophisticated actor like North Korea. As I've argued for before though, we should be furiously working to improve our boost phase intercept capability as North Korea is a perfect candidate for it. (maybe the only good candidate)

As for the US and North Korea there is a third and frankly much better option: let North Korea gain that capability and continue to maintain the status quo on the peninsula. Saying that to avoid a nuclear war in the future we need to start one now is not convincing to me.



But we don't know that diplomacy won't work. In fact if anything the available evidence shows it works quite well. There's been peace on the Korean peninsula for 60 years or so, after all.

I think that is a horrible idea. The reason the cold war was not the end of the world, was because both sides wanted to live and had people that wanted to live. NK has a leader that may very well give the command as he dies, and a people that might be brainwashed enough to do it. If you think M.A.D. is going to be the solution, then you must presume that he fears death. If he knows he is going to die, and there is nobody to stop him but many willing to follow him, then all you have done is make it worse. We are not dealing with self interested actors like we have before. What we have is a guy who has barricaded himself in while knowing that ultimately he cannot win. So he is buying time but once he realizes time has run out, what will he do?