Total Posts:140|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

US invade N.Korea and being nuke strike?

suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 1:05:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I am thinking a strategic scenario where for whatever reasons the US has decided to invade N.Korea with carrier group. Due to strategic mismanagement or misinterpretation of data, North Korea is allowed to activate its nuclear arsenal which is only a Hiroshima-size blast but enough to eliminate the entire carrier group in the operation (essentially all the forces).

What do you think would be the US government respond? Will they retaliate with tactical nuclear strike? Will they send another task force and risk another Korean nuke (assume that they don't know for sure how many war head the Korean have)? Or will they simply abandon the operation and sue for peace?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 1:24:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Wholly unrealistic on several grounds:

1) There has never been a direct confrontation between two nuclear powers.
2) Had the US wanted to invade N. Korea or somehow assert UN control over it, it would have done so in 1950.
3) No one in the region wants that war - no one, especially China, wants instability to come out of that region.
4) If N. Korea nuked someone, it would probably be S. Korea, in a location with lots of US troops (Camp Humphreys most likely).
5) Unlike the Middle East, US policy of pre-emption in N. Korea would probably be opposed by a Sino-Russian alliance. It hits too close to home. Escalation would involve MAD. It will not happen.

Once China and S. Korea more fully develop, some sort of amicable reunion of the peninsula will probably occur. It will probably coincide with a diminished US presence in East Asia. Such a reunion would probably strengthen the traditional ties that China and Korea have historically had over millenia. The alternative to this amicable solution is nuclear war.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 1:28:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
How do you know we are not already launching operations in NK? I know for a fact, troops stationed in Japan have been deployed on classified missions to classified locations. I'm assuming its to NK, since the deployment coincides with recent threats against the bases in that region.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 1:30:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 1:28:29 AM, DanT wrote:
How do you know we are not already launching operations in NK? I know for a fact, troops stationed in Japan have been deployed on classified missions to classified locations. I'm assuming its to NK, since the deployment coincides with recent threats against the bases in that region.

There are always troops deployed on classified missions. There are always "recent threats against the bases in that region" from N. Korea.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 1:36:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 1:24:19 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Wholly unrealistic on several grounds:

1) There has never been a direct confrontation between two nuclear powers.
Just because it never happened, doesn't mean it never will.
2) Had the US wanted to invade N. Korea or somehow assert UN control over it, it would have done so in 1950.
We didn't want to occupy Japan, but after the attack on Pearl Harbor they forced our hand.
3) No one in the region wants that war - no one, especially China, wants instability to come out of that region.
NK wants that war.
4) If N. Korea nuked someone, it would probably be S. Korea, in a location with lots of US troops (Camp Humphreys most likely).
This I agree with, either that or Okinawa.
5) Unlike the Middle East, US policy of pre-emption in N. Korea would probably be opposed by a Sino-Russian alliance. It hits too close to home. Escalation would involve MAD. It will not happen.

Not true. If they pose an immediate threat, it is likely.
Once China and S. Korea more fully develop, some sort of amicable reunion of the peninsula will probably occur. It will probably coincide with a diminished US presence in East Asia. Such a reunion would probably strengthen the traditional ties that China and Korea have historically had over millenia. The alternative to this amicable solution is nuclear war.

That's a pretty big assumption
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 1:39:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 1:30:49 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/25/2013 1:28:29 AM, DanT wrote:
How do you know we are not already launching operations in NK? I know for a fact, troops stationed in Japan have been deployed on classified missions to classified locations. I'm assuming its to NK, since the deployment coincides with recent threats against the bases in that region.

There are always troops deployed on classified missions. There are always "recent threats against the bases in that region" from N. Korea.

I'm not saying we are already at war, I'm just saying we cannot claim with absolute certainty that operations are not currently taking place in NK. We had troops dying in the Falklands before the American public even knew we were at war.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 1:46:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Your under the false assumption that the carrier group doesn't have the capability to take out a badly made missile. Pretty sure they do.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 1:52:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 1:36:42 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/25/2013 1:24:19 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Wholly unrealistic on several grounds:

1) There has never been a direct confrontation between two nuclear powers.
Just because it never happened, doesn't mean it never will.

Ok then. Go ahead and advocate nuclear war, I won't stop you.

2) Had the US wanted to invade N. Korea or somehow assert UN control over it, it would have done so in 1950.
We didn't want to occupy Japan, but after the attack on Pearl Harbor they forced our hand.

Your point has no relevance to mine. I agree with it, and my point still stands.

3) No one in the region wants that war - no one, especially China, wants instability to come out of that region.
NK wants that war.

No one cares about NK's opinion. It's highly doubtful that NK cares about NK's opinion.

4) If N. Korea nuked someone, it would probably be S. Korea, in a location with lots of US troops (Camp Humphreys most likely).
This I agree with, either that or Okinawa.
5) Unlike the Middle East, US policy of pre-emption in N. Korea would probably be opposed by a Sino-Russian alliance. It hits too close to home. Escalation would involve MAD. It will not happen.

Not true. If they pose an immediate threat, it is likely.

You are contradicting yourself here. NK is within an immediate proximity to China and Russia.

Once China and S. Korea more fully develop, some sort of amicable reunion of the peninsula will probably occur. It will probably coincide with a diminished US presence in East Asia. Such a reunion would probably strengthen the traditional ties that China and Korea have historically had over millenia. The alternative to this amicable solution is nuclear war.

That's a pretty big assumption

Why?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 1:53:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 1:46:08 AM, OberHerr wrote:
Your under the false assumption that the carrier group doesn't have the capability to take out a badly made missile. Pretty sure they do.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think missile defense has ever been used against nuclear weapons.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 1:53:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 1:52:28 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
You are contradicting yourself here. NK is within an immediate proximity to China and Russia.

O.o ?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 1:54:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 1:39:54 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/25/2013 1:30:49 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/25/2013 1:28:29 AM, DanT wrote:
How do you know we are not already launching operations in NK? I know for a fact, troops stationed in Japan have been deployed on classified missions to classified locations. I'm assuming its to NK, since the deployment coincides with recent threats against the bases in that region.

There are always troops deployed on classified missions. There are always "recent threats against the bases in that region" from N. Korea.


I'm not saying we are already at war, I'm just saying we cannot claim with absolute certainty that operations are not currently taking place in NK. We had troops dying in the Falklands before the American public even knew we were at war.

We ARE already at war. The Korean war never ended.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 1:54:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 1:53:16 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/25/2013 1:46:08 AM, OberHerr wrote:
Your under the false assumption that the carrier group doesn't have the capability to take out a badly made missile. Pretty sure they do.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think missile defense has ever been used against nuclear weapons.

No, buts its been tested against unarmed missiles. It won't work on the more sophisticated missiles, but on whatever NK uses its hilariously easy.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 1:55:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 1:53:29 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/25/2013 1:52:28 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
You are contradicting yourself here. NK is within an immediate proximity to China and Russia.

O.o ?

lol, use a map. NK shares a border with Russia.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 1:55:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 1:54:54 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/25/2013 1:53:16 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/25/2013 1:46:08 AM, OberHerr wrote:
Your under the false assumption that the carrier group doesn't have the capability to take out a badly made missile. Pretty sure they do.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think missile defense has ever been used against nuclear weapons.

No, buts its been tested against unarmed missiles. It won't work on the more sophisticated missiles, but on whatever NK uses its hilariously easy.

Nuclear fallout?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 1:55:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 1:54:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/25/2013 1:39:54 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/25/2013 1:30:49 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/25/2013 1:28:29 AM, DanT wrote:
How do you know we are not already launching operations in NK? I know for a fact, troops stationed in Japan have been deployed on classified missions to classified locations. I'm assuming its to NK, since the deployment coincides with recent threats against the bases in that region.

There are always troops deployed on classified missions. There are always "recent threats against the bases in that region" from N. Korea.


I'm not saying we are already at war, I'm just saying we cannot claim with absolute certainty that operations are not currently taking place in NK. We had troops dying in the Falklands before the American public even knew we were at war.

We ARE already at war. The Korean war never ended.

TECHNICALLY, its just the worlds longest ceasefire.

For all terms and purposes we aren't at war.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 1:57:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 1:55:30 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/25/2013 1:54:54 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/25/2013 1:53:16 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/25/2013 1:46:08 AM, OberHerr wrote:
Your under the false assumption that the carrier group doesn't have the capability to take out a badly made missile. Pretty sure they do.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think missile defense has ever been used against nuclear weapons.

No, buts its been tested against unarmed missiles. It won't work on the more sophisticated missiles, but on whatever NK uses its hilariously easy.

Nuclear fallout?

I suspect NK would be the ones experiencing it.

Which isn't all too bad, considering it would probably blow up close to one of their launching areas. Even if it did go over our carrier, I assume they could move out of the way of it.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 1:59:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 1:55:10 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/25/2013 1:53:29 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/25/2013 1:52:28 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
You are contradicting yourself here. NK is within an immediate proximity to China and Russia.

O.o ?

lol, use a map. NK shares a border with Russia.

Huh. While they don't quite share a border, never realized they were that close, though Russia is close to pretty much everyone.

Still, I think thats one of the sparsely populated areas of Russia.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 2:00:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 1:59:23 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/25/2013 1:55:10 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/25/2013 1:53:29 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/25/2013 1:52:28 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
You are contradicting yourself here. NK is within an immediate proximity to China and Russia.

O.o ?

lol, use a map. NK shares a border with Russia.

Huh. While they don't quite share a border, never realized they were that close, though Russia is close to pretty much everyone.

Still, I think thats one of the sparsely populated areas of Russia.

True, but a border is a border. That's why Russia is part of the 6 party talks.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 2:01:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 2:00:22 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/25/2013 1:59:23 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/25/2013 1:55:10 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/25/2013 1:53:29 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/25/2013 1:52:28 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
You are contradicting yourself here. NK is within an immediate proximity to China and Russia.

O.o ?

lol, use a map. NK shares a border with Russia.

Huh. While they don't quite share a border, never realized they were that close, though Russia is close to pretty much everyone.

Still, I think thats one of the sparsely populated areas of Russia.

True, but a border is a border. That's why Russia is part of the 6 party talks.

Probably also because they still have ties with NK and used to, if not still do, give them aid.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 2:01:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 1:57:23 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/25/2013 1:55:30 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/25/2013 1:54:54 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/25/2013 1:53:16 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/25/2013 1:46:08 AM, OberHerr wrote:
Your under the false assumption that the carrier group doesn't have the capability to take out a badly made missile. Pretty sure they do.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think missile defense has ever been used against nuclear weapons.

No, buts its been tested against unarmed missiles. It won't work on the more sophisticated missiles, but on whatever NK uses its hilariously easy.

Nuclear fallout?

I suspect NK would be the ones experiencing it.

Which isn't all too bad, considering it would probably blow up close to one of their launching areas. Even if it did go over our carrier, I assume they could move out of the way of it.

I suppose another unrealisitc aspect of this scenario is why we would send our carrier battle group out there in the first place. More than likely we'd just bomb the $hit out of them from Japan.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 2:05:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Never meant it to be realistic, politically it is bad idea to strike/invade North Korea for most of the reasons, that doesn't mean that politician will not make a stupid decision though. As the old has said, it can go bad, it will go bad.

My focus is when the crisis did happened, your politician is stupid enough to go to war with North Korea without verifying it nuclear capability, he is also stupid enough to let those nuke wipe out his force but then what? What should he do in this case?

The question is also relevant to many hostile nation that wish to arm themselves with nuclear weapons. I think the main reasons why nations like Iran or North Korea want to have nuclear capability is to defend their sovereignty against foreign forces, in most of the case: US. But is the policy ever work, assume that they are nuclear capable and successfully use it , is it enough to deter super power from threatening their domestic authority?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 2:07:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It is also possible that Japan would not support you in this war for this very reasons. If the North Korea, by any chance is nuclear capable, they will have to strike Japan mainland instead of military group.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 2:12:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 2:01:40 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I suppose another unrealisitc aspect of this scenario is why we would send our carrier battle group out there in the first place. More than likely we'd just bomb the $hit out of them from Japan.

Well, actually, I believe we HAVE one out by NK right now.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 2:13:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 2:07:39 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
It is also possible that Japan would not support you in this war for this very reasons. If the North Korea, by any chance is nuclear capable, they will have to strike Japan mainland instead of military group.

Well, Japan would obviously be for whatever course would end up with them not getting mauled by nukes.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 2:13:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 2:05:17 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Never meant it to be realistic, politically it is bad idea to strike/invade North Korea for most of the reasons, that doesn't mean that politician will not make a stupid decision though. As the old has said, it can go bad, it will go bad.

My focus is when the crisis did happened, your politician is stupid enough to go to war with North Korea without verifying it nuclear capability, he is also stupid enough to let those nuke wipe out his force but then what? What should he do in this case?

The question is also relevant to many hostile nation that wish to arm themselves with nuclear weapons. I think the main reasons why nations like Iran or North Korea want to have nuclear capability is to defend their sovereignty against foreign forces, in most of the case: US. But is the policy ever work, assume that they are nuclear capable and successfully use it , is it enough to deter super power from threatening their domestic authority?

The problem with this is that many things are unrealistic. You could say that America wanted to have the world's biggest party on a volcano, so we flew our entire population to Hawaii and had them dance on that volcano. Then the volcano erupted. Then what?? NO MOAR AMURICA!

It's much easier dealing with realistic scenarios, or at least hypotheticals with a decent chance of occurring.

What would we do without a carrier battle group? I don't know, but we have several more where that came from.

About nuclear non-proliferation, IMHO it's just a matter of time before whoever wanted a nuke, gets a nuke. Nuclear war is a very nasty business. If we ever use a nuke, more than likely Russia will begin using them as well. Misunderstandings with nukes are existential threats to humanity, from which we will more than likely not recover from.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 2:14:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 2:12:32 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/25/2013 2:01:40 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I suppose another unrealisitc aspect of this scenario is why we would send our carrier battle group out there in the first place. More than likely we'd just bomb the $hit out of them from Japan.

Well, actually, I believe we HAVE one out by NK right now.

Yes, but we are not invading with it.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 2:15:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 2:14:11 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/25/2013 2:12:32 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/25/2013 2:01:40 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I suppose another unrealisitc aspect of this scenario is why we would send our carrier battle group out there in the first place. More than likely we'd just bomb the $hit out of them from Japan.

Well, actually, I believe we HAVE one out by NK right now.

Yes, but we are not invading with it.

Well, duh.

Must be kinda intimidating for the NK generals. Realizing that one ship alone has more firepower than their entire nation. Including the nukes, since carriers have warheads on them.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 2:23:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 2:13:17 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/25/2013 2:05:17 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Never meant it to be realistic, politically it is bad idea to strike/invade North Korea for most of the reasons, that doesn't mean that politician will not make a stupid decision though. As the old has said, it can go bad, it will go bad.

My focus is when the crisis did happened, your politician is stupid enough to go to war with North Korea without verifying it nuclear capability, he is also stupid enough to let those nuke wipe out his force but then what? What should he do in this case?

The question is also relevant to many hostile nation that wish to arm themselves with nuclear weapons. I think the main reasons why nations like Iran or North Korea want to have nuclear capability is to defend their sovereignty against foreign forces, in most of the case: US. But is the policy ever work, assume that they are nuclear capable and successfully use it , is it enough to deter super power from threatening their domestic authority?

The problem with this is that many things are unrealistic. You could say that America wanted to have the world's biggest party on a volcano, so we flew our entire population to Hawaii and had them dance on that volcano. Then the volcano erupted. Then what?? NO MOAR AMURICA!

It's much easier dealing with realistic scenarios, or at least hypotheticals with a decent chance of occurring.

What would we do without a carrier battle group? I don't know, but we have several more where that came from.

About nuclear non-proliferation, IMHO it's just a matter of time before whoever wanted a nuke, gets a nuke. Nuclear war is a very nasty business. If we ever use a nuke, more than likely Russia will begin using them as well. Misunderstandings with nukes are existential threats to humanity, from which we will more than likely not recover from.

Now you are speaking sense, yes you can send in more fleet if you wish to continue this operation. However, you don't really know if the North Korea would had any more nukes and any force you send will face a nuclear risk. Not sending a force on the other hands would be a risk to your allied in vicinity (South Korea, Japan) because the war is already broke out and your forces in the area is now gone. Sue for peace, on the other hands would be a victory for North Korea, and you would have to pay whatever the price they demand. I think it would be quite interesting on how to wight the value of all this hard decisions.

I also don't think it is totally unrealistic, you did it once already in Iraq, if Suddam did really possessed WMD and successfully used it. Your government will have to face a decision like this too.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 2:23:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 2:14:11 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/25/2013 2:12:32 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/25/2013 2:01:40 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I suppose another unrealisitc aspect of this scenario is why we would send our carrier battle group out there in the first place. More than likely we'd just bomb the $hit out of them from Japan.

Well, actually, I believe we HAVE one out by NK right now.

Yes, but we are not invading with it.

Let me put it this way. We would not deploy significant forces to NK without first neutralizing their nuclear deterrent. We know where their testing facility is, I'm almost certain satellites have been tracking the location of anything that would look like a nuclear silo, and we most likely know exactly where any significant missile sites are. These would be destroyed before the carrier fleet got into position for an invasion, along with NK's army along the DMZ, assuming that we would invade NK (I can't think of why we would). Then, there's the issue of nuclear fallout potentially affecting our troops. Knowing why we would invade NK is kind of important here.

The more likely scenario is that NK uses their nuke pre-emptively, and then we bomb the $hit out of them, and then invade. More than likely at this point, China will invade first, and meet up with whatever is left from S. Korea's nuclear holocaust to redraw the new Korean border. It's possible, depending on the damage to S. Korea, that China would attempt to annex S. Korea whole. Our response would probably be to nuke Chinese forces, which may or may not be followed by a Russo-Chinese nuclear response. All roads lead to MAD.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 2:25:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 2:15:47 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/25/2013 2:14:11 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/25/2013 2:12:32 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/25/2013 2:01:40 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I suppose another unrealisitc aspect of this scenario is why we would send our carrier battle group out there in the first place. More than likely we'd just bomb the $hit out of them from Japan.

Well, actually, I believe we HAVE one out by NK right now.

Yes, but we are not invading with it.

Well, duh.

Must be kinda intimidating for the NK generals. Realizing that one ship alone has more firepower than their entire nation. Including the nukes, since carriers have warheads on them.

Yeah, American military power is really almost beyond imagination. It really makes you wonder how we repeatedly find ourselves in stupid conflicts where we look like a bear stuck in a bear trap.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?