NK plans military build up

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: rahvin
The best thing the US can do is to step back and let China and Russia take care of thier bastard step-child of a nation (NK).

Nonsense, if it has to be done then keep the Chinese and Russians out of it. The best thing the U.S. can do is reload the military machine for 18-24 months and then do it on its own. The Air Force and Navy stockpiles are smarting from the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. NK and Iran probably breathed a collective sigh of relief when they started roughly counting the weapons the U.S. expended.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: Mookow
Actually, DC is out of range. Places like LA and other on the West Coast are the ones that would need to worry about that

Some in DC would prefer that either SF or LA go up in smoke. Shifts the U.S. leadership even further East than it already has been.

 

[TheShiz]

I read somewhere that a nuke on a boat would probably have a 90% chance of getting to the coast without being noticed, so I would think coastal targets would be the most vulnerable.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: AnImuS

Originally posted by: AndrewR
NK plans military build up

With what money?

probably with the money the US will pay them to stfu about the nukes

I'm sorry, but President Clinton is no longer in office. That method of diplomacy with North Korea will not be used again, after it so successfully prevented them from developing weapons since 1994!

Speak for yourself! Diplomacy is what we need, no pre-emptive strike like Iraq plz! I'm sorry but unlike Iraq, North Korea actually has WMDs such as nukes and they actually have a delivery system to dish out the pain. They're crazy and unpredictable, the last thing we need is to shoot first.

I live right by DC... so I rather not have nuclear winds blowing my way THANKS!

Iraq's WMD history is well known, much is still unaccounted for if you only go by the amounts they ADMITTED to making...

TheShiz: "I read somewhere that a nuke on a boat would probably have a 90% chance of getting to the coast without being noticed, so I would think coastal targets would be the most vulnerable."

NK missiles can reach the west coast, but you are definitely right about that, look at what jap subs were able to do in ww2 on the west coast.

As far as the questions of "with what money?" They already spend 1/3 of their $$$$ on the military, pretty well accepted they also sell ALOT of drugs, heroin and opium, HUGE bust in Aussie of a NK freighter carrying tons of heroin, no private enterprise in NK though, what are the odds the Govt. did not know one of their boats was being used in this manner?

 

[NetGuySC]

I vote that we deploy Nukes to South Korea and Japan until China decides that it wants to spank North Korea. I am sure that China doesn't want Nukes in South Korea with it being like maybe a 5 or 10 minute flight to Bejing.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Iraq's WMD history is well known, much is still unaccounted for if you only go by the amounts they ADMITTED to making...

TheShiz: "I read somewhere that a nuke on a boat would probably have a 90% chance of getting to the coast without being noticed, so I would think coastal targets would be the most vulnerable."

NK missiles can reach the west coast, but you are definitely right about that, look at what jap subs were able to do in ww2 on the west coast.

As far as the questions of "with what money?" They already spend 1/3 of their $$$$ on the military, pretty well accepted they also sell ALOT of drugs, heroin and opium, HUGE bust in Aussie of a NK freighter carrying tons of heroin, no private enterprise in NK though, what are the odds the Govt. did not know one of their boats was being used in this manner?

The CIA world Factbook says NK spends 70% of their budget on millitary expenditures.

 

[AndrewR]

I vote that we deploy Nukes to South Korea and Japan until China decides that it wants to spank North Korea. I am sure that China doesn't want Nukes in South Korea with it being like maybe a 5 or 10 minute flight to Bejing.

The Japanese people might have a little something to say about that, considering they don't even want a nuclear powered aircraft carrier stationed in Japan. It seems they have a history with nuclear weapons...

Speak for yourself! Diplomacy is what we need, no pre-emptive strike like Iraq plz! I'm sorry but unlike Iraq, North Korea actually has WMDs such as nukes and they actually have a delivery system to dish out the pain. They're crazy and unpredictable, the last thing we need is to shoot first.

Read my post again. I said "diplomacy like that", not diplomacy. Shelling out money to North Korea in return for "promises" achieves nothing but enriching the North Korean regime since North Korea has proved time and again that they are incapable or unwilling to fulfill the obligations that they undertake.

Lastly, you have no idea what North Korea is capable of doing with their nuclear weapons in terms of delivery systems so don't pontificate like you do.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: NetGuySC
I vote that we deploy Nukes to South Korea and Japan until China decides that it wants to spank North Korea. I am sure that China doesn't want Nukes in South Korea with it being like maybe a 5 or 10 minute flight to Bejing.

We already have a five-minute flight from the open ocean. No need for land-based nukes. Do you propose to break yet another treaty with the Russians?

 

[AnImuS]

Originally posted by: NetGuySC
I vote that we deploy Nukes to South Korea and Japan until China decides that it wants to spank North Korea. I am sure that China doesn't want Nukes in South Korea with it being like maybe a 5 or 10 minute flight to Bejing.

Last thing we need is spreading nukes to countries. IMHO this would also justify Russia Sending Nukes or Info to Syria/Iran inorder for these two countries to "protect themselfs" from Israel which is believed to have Nukes already.
Thats just an example of course...

 

[Zrom999]

I vote that we deploy Nukes to South Korea and Japan until China decides that it wants to spank North Korea. I am sure that China doesn't want Nukes in South Korea with it being like maybe a 5 or 10 minute flight to Bejing

You really think the Red Chinese will stand around with their [AK-47s] in their hands and let the U.S. just deploy atomic weapons there?

 

[KenGr]

Originally posted by: MadRat

Originally posted by: NetGuySC
I vote that we deploy Nukes to South Korea and Japan until China decides that it wants to spank North Korea. I am sure that China doesn't want Nukes in South Korea with it being like maybe a 5 or 10 minute flight to Bejing.

We already have a five-minute flight from the open ocean. No need for land-based nukes. Do you propose to break yet another treaty with the Russians?

What treaty? We had nukes in South Korea until a little over 10 years ago and removed them only because of an agreement with North Korea (which they have now declared to be void). The Russians and Chinese were not party to that agreement. The only treaty we "broke" (actually nullified under mutual agreement) was on space based defense systems. Our agreements with the Russians on nuclear arms reduction remains in effect and says nothing about where those arms are located. Japan has no nuclear weapons only because of a policy by the Japanese, not by any treaties. If the Japanese request us to station nuclear weapons in Japan (and they are seriously considering it), no treaty prohibits this.

And yes, it's true, wherever there are international waters, the US has nuclear capability, a fact that shouldn't be ignored by the North Koreans.

 

[MadRat]

The last round of talks that takes both sides below 2200 weapons to the 1700 weapon range mostly eliminates short-range weapons except for nuclear depth charges and freefall nuclear bombs.

 

[KenGr]

Out of 1700 we can probably spare a few for wherever they're needed. If I remember correctly, all our Asian based weapons have always been B-52/B-1 based. With the submarines, there really isn't any point in trying to install launch sites anywhere outside the US.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: KenGr
If I remember correctly, all our Asian based weapons have always been B-52/B-1 based. With the submarines, there really isn't any point in trying to install launch sites anywhere outside the US.

I bet most Asian-based U.S. nukes not on warships and submarines lay to the eastern and western extremes, if there are any at all. Most likely none of the current U.S. nuclear force in the Asian arena is anywhere but on the opean ocean.

 

[AndrewR]

If the Japanese request us to station nuclear weapons in Japan (and they are seriously considering it), no treaty prohibits this.

Care to cite a source for this? While I know that the Defense Minister has been vocal about acquiring some offensive capability for the Japanese military, I have not seen anything regarding the stationing of nuclear weapons on Japanese soil. It was hard enough to get a nuclear powered aircraft carrier stationed at Sasebo temporarily -- the Japanese people will throw a collective fit if we start bringing nuclear weapons around in the open.