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

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
As crazy as you think Trump is, you have to also believe that Kim is even more crazy. If you fear Trump with Nukes, why would you not logically fear NK with nukes?

As for smuggling nukes on a ship, it makes the nuke far less effective. These things need to be well above ground to maximize the blast radius. They could build something that launches it a mile into the air which would be possible, but then becomes much harder to smuggle. It can actually be more effective to go the ICBM route.

Sure they are more effective when air burst but that doesn't change the fact that they are still very effective when set off at ground level. A nuke at ground level in DC and New York would absolutely devastate us and our economy for decades. Hell we might never regain our position in the world.

You still have not answered this question.

The context is that if Trump is crazy and dangerous, how is Kim not a greater risk as he is more crazy?

Well this is the first time that you asked that question. Kim being more crazy is debatable but sure, he is more dangerous. That doesn't change the fact that there is dickall we can do about it though.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
Sure they are more effective when air burst but that doesn't change the fact that they are still very effective when set off at ground level. A nuke at ground level in DC and New York would absolutely devastate us and our economy for decades. Hell we might never regain our position in the world.

You think one city is enough to make the US lose its position in the world? I disagree with that.



Well this is the first time that you asked that question. Kim being more crazy is debatable but sure, he is more dangerous. That doesn't change the fact that there is dickall we can do about it though.

No, its literally me quoting my question to you in post #114. You responded, but in no answered my question but did ask me another question. I responded in post #120 and again asked you to answer my previous question to you.

You again have not answered my question of "And what is the risk if you let him gain a greater ability to kill even more? Right now let's say it's 15 million. What will it be in 10 more years?"

Ill try asking it again in a different way if that helps. If Kim and NK is holding millions of people hostage, what will happen in 10 more years? Do you think it will be less or more?

The importance of this question comes from the context that NK is a horrible state that is doing horrible things to its people. Every defector gives stores about the horrible conditions. If you believe those people, then Kim is a far greater monster than Trump could ever be, and yet we do not remove him because of the fear of the millions of deaths. That risk only grows over time, as every new leader has made things worse. But, please answer my question.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
You think one city is enough to make the US lose its position in the world? I disagree with that.





No, its literally me quoting my question to you in post #114. You responded, but in no answered my question but did ask me another question. I responded in post #120 and again asked you to answer my previous question to you.

You again have not answered my question of "And what is the risk if you let him gain a greater ability to kill even more? Right now let's say it's 15 million. What will it be in 10 more years?"

Ill try asking it again in a different way if that helps. If Kim and NK is holding millions of people hostage, what will happen in 10 more years? Do you think it will be less or more?

The importance of this question comes from the context that NK is a horrible state that is doing horrible things to its people. Every defector gives stores about the horrible conditions. If you believe those people, then Kim is a far greater monster than Trump could ever be, and yet we do not remove him because of the fear of the millions of deaths. That risk only grows over time, as every new leader has made things worse. But, please answer my question.

I think that he could very easily hold far more than 15 million people "hostage", as you like to put it, right now but sure, there is a good possibility that number will be higher in 10 years and is very unlikely to be less. Is that an adequate answer?

Edit: And taking out DC while Congress is in session and New York, which wouldn't be all that difficult to get a ship smuggling a nuke close enough to, would be absolutely devastating. Just look at what 9-11 did to our economy and that was just 2 buildings and one industry. Not to mention the insane amount of debt that we continue to rack up fighting neverending wars because of it.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
I think that he could very easily hold far more than 15 million people "hostage", as you like to put it, right now but sure, there is a good possibility that number will be higher in 10 years and is very unlikely to be less. Is that an adequate answer?

Edit: And taking out DC while Congress is in session and New York, which wouldn't be all that difficult to get a ship smuggling a nuke close enough to, would be absolutely devastating. Just look at what 9-11 did to our economy and that was just 2 buildings and one industry. Not to mention the insane amount of debt that we continue to rack up fighting neverending wars because of it.

So, if NK continues to become a bigger threat, and you also believe the leadership is unstable, why would you not consider a preemptive strike and take the fewer deaths in the long run?

And, 911 hurt, but I do not see how it weakened the us as the global power. The world went down with the US.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
So, if NK continues to become a bigger threat, and you also believe the leadership is unstable, why would you not consider a preemptive strike and take the fewer deaths in the long run?

Because keeping the status quo and hoping for some sort of internal regime change is far better than guaranteeing the death of 15+ million, destabilizing the world economy, and likely having North Korea launching nuclear weapons at our allies and military bases.

I keep saying this and you seem to keep ignoring it, currently he can nuke ALL of Japan with the missiles he has that are proven to work. I'm talking about the entirety of Japan so add that to your calculations and get back to me. I'm guessing your overall question is "at what point does he hold enough people hostage that we are forced to act" and the answer is he passed that number before he even took power imho but is damn sure way beyond that number now.

And, 911 hurt, but I do not see how it weakened the us as the global power. The world went down with the US.

911 was two buildings, I am talking about two huge cities including the vast majority of our legislative, executive, maybe even our highest judicial branches of government, our financial nerve center and one of our most densely packed cities all in two rather easy strikes. At least compared to building and successfully launching ICBMs at the same targets.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
Because keeping the status quo and hoping for some sort of internal regime change is far better than guaranteeing the death of 15+ million, destabilizing the world economy, and likely having North Korea launching nuclear weapons at our allies and military bases.

I keep saying this and you seem to keep ignoring it, currently he can nuke ALL of Japan with the missiles he has that are proven to work. I'm talking about the entirety of Japan so add that to your calculations and get back to me. I'm guessing your overall question is "at what point does he hold enough people hostage that we are forced to act" and the answer is he passed that number before he even took power imho but is damn sure way beyond that number now.



911 was two buildings, I am talking about two huge cities including the vast majority of our legislative, executive, maybe even our highest judicial branches of government, our financial nerve center and one of our most densely packed cities all in two rather easy strikes. At least compared to building and successfully launching ICBMs at the same targets.


NK cannot destroy all of Japan.

Your position is logical if you assume NK will never attack. Given the situation with their leadership I don't see how you can be so sure.

How many ICBMs are you willing to let NK have? The world was scared during the cold war when two rational states were vying for power. Many times both sides almost launched with far more stable governments. Luckily we had people that held back when the protocol called for a launch. Had it happened it would have been far worse. And you are willing to let NK start another cold war in the hopes they won't do what the US and the USSR almost did multiple times.

How can you be so sure of your position? And before you ask how am I so sure of mine, I'm not. I hope on everything Kim is just bluffing and will stop, but I can also see he may not.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
NK cannot destroy all of Japan.

Your position is logical if you assume NK will never attack. Given the situation with their leadership I don't see how you can be so sure.

He has 60+ nukes, yes he can.

How many ICBMs are you willing to let NK have? The world was scared during the cold war when two rational states were vying for power. Many times both sides almost launched with far more stable governments. Luckily we had people that held back when the protocol called for a launch. Had it happened it would have been far worse. And you are willing to let NK start another cold war in the hopes they won't do what the US and the USSR almost did multiple times.

In all due fairness, we are currently responsible for a lot of the bullshit back and forth that is going on with North Korea. I mean seriously, "my big red button is bigger" just to provoke him? How about we stop provoking him for absolutely no good reason before we talk about first strikes? As far as how many ICBMs, again it isn't how many I'm willing to let them have. It is the fact that we are long past the point of a first strike being an option if it ever was in recent history.

How can you be so sure of your position? And before you ask how am I so sure of mine, I'm not. I hope on everything Kim is just bluffing and will stop, but I can also see he may not.

Well I obviously can't be absolutely positive about my position and sure if I had 100% absolute undeniable proof that NK was about to start nuking the shit out of the planet then I'd support a first strike. Unfortunately we will never get that kind of proof until missiles start flying and I'm not willing to sentence 15+++ million people to death on anything less.

A question for you, specifically what kind of proof would you require before supporting a first strike against North Korea and what would that strike entail? Or do you think that we currently have enough of a reason to hit them and again what would that entail?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikeymikec

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
He has 60+ nukes, yes he can.

This is pointless, but no he cant, not yet at least.



In all due fairness, we are currently responsible for a lot of the bullshit back and forth that is going on with North Korea. I mean seriously, "my big red button is bigger" just to provoke him? How about we stop provoking him for absolutely no good reason before we talk about first strikes? As far as how many ICBMs, again it isn't how many I'm willing to let them have. It is the fact that we are long past the point of a first strike being an option if it ever was in recent history.

So Trump is an idiot, so I'll get that out of the way. That said, Trump is doing nothing more than Kim, and if you blame Trump, you must also blame Kim. If you see Trump as provoking, the Kim is doing just as much. Also, for as much as Trump is an idiot, to say for no good reason is to ignore how often NK has threatened a preemptive attack. NK does not talk of striking armies, but wiping out all life in the countries they are talking about. They are not talking about defense, but pure genocide.

We are not past the first strike, because if NK is going to keep getting worse, the longer you wait the more damage they will do. So if you think 15+ million deaths is bad, how do you feel about 100+ million? At what point do you try and stop NK from growing its Nuclear power?

Also, NK sure has been pissed at the UN which it said declared war when imposing new sanctions. So what should the international community do?

Well I obviously can't be absolutely positive about my position and sure if I had 100% absolute undeniable proof that NK was about to start nuking the shit out of the planet then I'd support a first strike. Unfortunately we will never get that kind of proof until missiles start flying and I'm not willing to sentence 15+++ million people to death on anything less.

I'm not saying you need to have 100% belief. If you feel like there is a 50/50 chance that in the next 15-20 years that NK will launch and follow through with the preemptive strikes they talk about, then what you would get is far more than 15++++++ dead.

A question for you, specifically what kind of proof would you require before supporting a first strike against North Korea and what would that strike entail? Or do you think that we currently have enough of a reason to hit them and again what would that entail?

I don't know if I would ever support a first strike unless all evidence pointed to NK getting ready to launch. You asked me before what would I do given the power, and I said look for every way other than war. China and Russia are both on board for increasing sanctions and I hope on everything that they work, and it looks like they might be. Please understand that what I say next should be understood in a very specific way and not defending or liking Trump in any way. I think his crazy is being used by the International community to scare Kim because every threat by the UN before has been toothless. Nobody believed there would ever be military action on NK because of the body count. Trump comes along and that assumption goes out the window. I pointed this out a while ago, that this is likely the only good thing to come from Trump, that the fear of what he might do would make people act. Trump is likely being used for this one narrow benefit. I just hope NK does not try and call Trump's bluff because I worry its not a bluff.
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
17,577
9,268
136
Well I obviously can't be absolutely positive about my position and sure if I had 100% absolute undeniable proof that NK was about to start nuking the shit out of the planet then I'd support a first strike. Unfortunately we will never get that kind of proof until missiles start flying and I'm not willing to sentence 15+++ million people to death on anything less.

And while the burden of proof for <insert reasonably sanely run country here> is at a reasonably high value of X, what do people suppose the burden of proof will be for that country's political opponents, ie. those who distrust that country's motives especially given the fact that they have just used nuclear missiles for destructive and perhaps selfish ends? If Russia nuked say the Ukraine tomorrow, saying they had nukes and were about to use them and here are some interesting photos and other bits of paperwork indicating a paper trail, who is going to believe them? Apart from Trump of course.

Furthermore, achieving a ceasefire when purely conventional weaponry is difficult enough. The consequences of using nukes are logically far longer term.