Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst
1
2
3
LastLast
  1. #21
    Old God I Push Buttons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    10,793
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    A contained nuclear war between India and Pakistan is enough to fuck over the world. The whole world doesn’t need to be drawn into the conflict when debris flows into the atmosphere and causes a nuclear winter.
    Except we are talking about North Korea going crazy and firing at most a few non-MIRVed IRBMs/ICBMs, some of which would probably fail, some of which would probably be shot down... And then the US retaliating proportionally (depending on what is targeted/hit, IE: they hit a city, we probably hit Pyongyang) with a low-yield (hundreds of kilotons) nuke.

    We are talking single digit detonations, presumably on opposite sides of the planet unless North Korea's target is South Korea or Japan.

    That isn't going to cause a nuclear winter.

  2. #22
    The Undying Themius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    33,925
    Quote Originally Posted by I Push Buttons View Post
    Except we are talking about North Korea going crazy and firing at most a few non-MIRVed IRBMs/ICBMs, some of which would probably fail, some of which would probably be shot down... And then the US retaliating proportionally (depending on what is targeted/hit, IE: they hit a city, we probably hit Pyongyang) with a low-yield (hundreds of kilotons) nuke.

    We are talking single digit detonations, presumably on opposite sides of the planet unless North Korea's target is South Korea or Japan.

    That isn't going to cause a nuclear winter.
    It is a poor idea that isn’t what we would do I feel. Conventional bombs, a nuclear attack on a city that close to Seoul is not optimal for our own ally.

  3. #23
    Old God I Push Buttons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    10,793
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    It is a poor idea that isn’t what we would do I feel. Conventional bombs, a nuclear attack on a city that close to Seoul is not optimal for our own ally.
    If we didn't retaliate with a nuke then our nuclear deterrence would be meaningless. The entire concept of nuclear deterrence is based on 'you nuke us, we'll nuke you'... If that fails, it would only invite further use of nukes in the future.

  4. #24
    The Undying Themius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    33,925
    Quote Originally Posted by I Push Buttons View Post
    If we didn't retaliate with a nuke then our nuclear deterrence would be meaningless. The entire concept of nuclear deterrence is based on 'you nuke us, we'll nuke you'... If that fails, it would only invite further use of nukes in the future.
    We risk fallout over Seoul..

  5. #25
    What realistically happens? The lone nuke will be shot out of the sky along with the few decoys they have
    and then Kim will die, his generals will die, a lot of the elite that support him will die.
    The USA, the South Koreans have publicly state they have a battalion who’s purpose is to raid them and kill everyone in charge.
    Hell, China probably have pawns in place ready to take care of things should Kim forget who’s his own lifeline is.

  6. #26
    Old God I Push Buttons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    10,793
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    We risk fallout over Seoul..
    1) Not really. Its 200km away to the southwest, even if the jet stream fluctuated sufficiently south, it would be over the sea by the time it reached the latitude of Seoul.

    2) In this scenario, Seoul would probably be fucked anyways. North Korea presumably wouldn't just arbitrarily decide to commit suicide one day, their actions would be part of a larger plan... IE: Taking South Korea, Seoul is target numero uno in any plan to that end.

    3) So what? We are talking about maintaining deterrence to prevent full scale nuclear exchanges and the potential end of our civilization in the future beyond this small scale exchange. A relatively small price to pay.

  7. #27
    Scarab Lord Thekri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A highly disgruntled constituent of Lindsey Graham.
    Posts
    4,367
    Realistically, the North Korean regime dies promptly and nobody mourns their passing. Depending on the circumstances around it, either the US nukes them back, or China swiftly occupies North Korea, or the Regime is overthrown some other way. If a successful nuclear attack occurs, then North Korea is over.

    However why would they do that? Nukes are only really useful if you don't use them. The threat of having nukes is far more powerful then actually firing one off. The second you use a nuke, the game is over, and you die horribly. North Korea doesn't want to nuke anyone, they want to have nukes so that they can threaten to nuke someone. Same with Iran. Nukes are dangerous because someday it might actually happen, on accident or because someone panics or something. But nobody is going to launch an unprovoked nuclear strike into someone else's country. Because if anyone does, that nation promptly dies. Even the US couldn't get away with doing that.
    "I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for that meddling ANTIFA!" - Adolf Hitler
    "I really wish Ghostpanther would stop misquoting me" - Abraham Lincoln

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    We risk fallout over Seoul..
    Dude. Seoul is essentially a hostage to NK conventional artillery. Only nuclear weapons have the needed destructive capacity to take out that artillery I'm short enough time window that Seoul doesn't get turned into pile of rocks.

  9. #29
    Epic! smityx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Walmart Basment FEMA Camp 7
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by Easo View Post
    Well, either China themselves would deal with it, or the Korea would finally become united, but Kim would not rule after it.
    In either way, there would be massive retaliation, yet I doubt it would be nuclear. There is more than enough conventional firepower in South Korea alone.
    Would probably need/want to be nuclear just to try and wipe out the artillery before NK can wipe Seoul off the map killing millions.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Funsipalo View Post
    The US used two nukes dipshit, it is still there.

    Maybe you go back to being a security guard for afghan rapists instead of making dumb easily contradicted statements about everything?
    Not to mention the conventional fire bombing of tokyo that took place slightly earlier than the nukes killed more than the nukes but no one really talks about that.

  10. #30
    Scarab Lord Thekri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A highly disgruntled constituent of Lindsey Graham.
    Posts
    4,367
    Quote Originally Posted by smityx View Post
    Not to mention the conventional fire bombing of tokyo that took place slightly earlier than the nukes killed more than the nukes but no one really talks about that.
    Because the difference there was the resources required to do it. The fire bombing campaigns were horrifically deadly, but they involved huge numbers of aircraft to conduct. OPN Meethouse, the most deadly raid, consisted of 334 B-29 bombers. Thousands of other bomber sorties were involved in the campaign, which is what made the damage so high.

    Strategically, everyone pretty much was resigned to the fact that if somebody can get 300+ heavy bombers over your capital, they are going to do a lot of damage. That just makes sense. The reason nuclear weapons were so shocking is because 2 cities got leveled by 2 bombers (Yes, there were other escorting bombers with them, but they didn't drop any munitions). This dramatically changed the combat math, where a single bomber getting through air defense networks could inflict strategic level damage to your nation. As far as US using them successfully with no retaliation... well obviously if nobody else has them, retaliation isn't an issue. If only one nation had nuclear weapons, they would still be a viable option.
    "I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for that meddling ANTIFA!" - Adolf Hitler
    "I really wish Ghostpanther would stop misquoting me" - Abraham Lincoln

  11. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Thekri View Post
    Because the difference there was the resources required to do it. The fire bombing campaigns were horrifically deadly, but they involved huge numbers of aircraft to conduct. OPN Meethouse, the most deadly raid, consisted of 334 B-29 bombers. Thousands of other bomber sorties were involved in the campaign, which is what made the damage so high.

    Strategically, everyone pretty much was resigned to the fact that if somebody can get 300+ heavy bombers over your capital, they are going to do a lot of damage. That just makes sense. The reason nuclear weapons were so shocking is because 2 cities got leveled by 2 bombers (Yes, there were other escorting bombers with them, but they didn't drop any munitions). This dramatically changed the combat math, where a single bomber getting through air defense networks could inflict strategic level damage to your nation. As far as US using them successfully with no retaliation... well obviously if nobody else has them, retaliation isn't an issue. If only one nation had nuclear weapons, they would still be a viable option.
    There's also the fact that the US opted not to use them in the war in Korea a couple of years later.

    Macarthur wanted to nuke the chinese, at which point Truman removed him. That created a precedent of not using them freely in situations where you have them, and your enemy does not.

  12. #32
    Scarab Lord Thekri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A highly disgruntled constituent of Lindsey Graham.
    Posts
    4,367
    Quote Originally Posted by zealo View Post
    There's also the fact that the US opted not to use them in the war in Korea a couple of years later.

    Macarthur wanted to nuke the chinese, at which point Truman removed him. That created a precedent of not using them freely in situations where you have them, and your enemy does not.
    True, but Russia had nuclear weapons a year before the Korean War started. Although neither the Chinese nor the Koreans had them, Truman was very concerned about the Soviet weapons.

    It was one of the most important decisions Truman ever made though, there was a lot of pressure coming from the military to use nuclear weapons, it wasn't just MacArthur pushing it. The idea was that it was immoral to let so many Americans die when we had a weapon that could break the stalemate. Thankfully Truman took the long view on them (Even though it was his decision to use them in WWII, which is a different topic).
    "I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for that meddling ANTIFA!" - Adolf Hitler
    "I really wish Ghostpanther would stop misquoting me" - Abraham Lincoln

  13. #33
    China has always preferred stability. And if they feel the need to forcibly take over NK to maintain that, then they will.
    Bear in mind, China does summon Kim on occasion for any reason they feel the need. Not the other way around.

    At this point in time China can only be amused that the great and powerful Oz they see in Trump lowers himself to deal with Kim.
    Acquittal doesn't mean exoneration


  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Collegeguy View Post
    Due to treaties, there would be no choice but to nuke NK. Whomever the administration is would be publicly lynched by house and senate if they didn't nuke them starting a trial no doubt. Allies would quickly leave and seek they own nuclear weapons. Chaos would ensue regardless, but the results would only be worse if the US didn't nuke back.
    Which treaties require you to nuke someone? There really is no need for nukes in NK case, they are not even close to being that strong.
    Lynched in Senate? Just look at Trump, someone can get away with a lot of stuff, as long as partisan policies are going on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Dude. Seoul is essentially a hostage to NK conventional artillery. Only nuclear weapons have the needed destructive capacity to take out that artillery I'm short enough time window that Seoul doesn't get turned into pile of rocks.
    Do you really value SK that low? Or the fact that shell artillery cant reach Seoul unless they drive Koksans right unto DMZ, so that leaves missiles only, all of which are definitely not targetted only at Seoul?
    Last edited by Easo; 2020-01-10 at 08:15 PM.

  15. #35
    The Insane Kellhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    19,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    We risk fallout over Seoul..
    Failing to respond in kind risks inviting others to use small numbers of nukes against the US.
    Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
    “Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword obviously never encountered automatic weapons.”
    "His knowledge on that topic is only power point deep..." "Power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely."
    "Who's the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?"

  16. #36
    Merely a Setback cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    25,933
    Quote Originally Posted by YUPPIE View Post
    A lot of people make the joking conclusion the US would retaliate by removing North Korea from the face of the planet, but in all seriousness, what happens? I hear China would intervene to protect North Korea from consequences and that the US nuking anyone in response would incite WW3 from the civilian crisis
    We'd reduce their country to glass. China would have no recourse for interfering.
    No one is above the law!

  17. #37
    We probably blow a nuke off on a remote research or nuke facility to limit casualties but show we are not afraid to use them....

    then as war hawks of our country love to do we would spend a few trillion invading NK for the next 6-12 years.
    Whether SHE IS INDICTED OR EVEN GUILTY IT DOESNT MATTER. HER GUILT IS A MOOT POINT!!! - Fox News 2016
    You don’t have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this Constitutional Republic,” - Sen (r) Graham 1999

  18. #38
    "tried" is the operative word here.

    NK is just used, by Russia and China, to troll the USA.

    Quote Originally Posted by ParanoiD84 View Post
    Absolutely no one would protect NK if they nuked anyone or tried.

  19. #39
    If it happens i would think the response would be so swift that China could not intervene or take out Kim themselves. The bigger question is how would the world respond to the real cleanup and more overall problems effecting the surrounding populace.

  20. #40
    It's quite simple, they would get invaded and occupied.
    "I feel bad for Limit , they put in so many hours only to come in second place" - Methodjosh

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •