North Korea H-bomb Test

Discussion in 'The Thunderdome' started by Volguy1971, Sep 3, 2017.

  1. Savage Orange

    Savage Orange Mr. Hot Take....

    Trump doesn't strike me as the Neville Chamberlain of our time but neither, unfortunately, does he strike me as FDR or Churchill-like either... Kim, on the other hand DOES strike me as being Hitler-like (I know... I KNOW... Comparisons to Hitler are a bad idea...) in his delusions of being something other than a third rate despot...
     
  2. emainvol

    emainvol Administrator

    That was more of a general question
     
  3. TennTradition

    TennTradition Super Moderator

    Ah. Sorry.

    Shrouds are tricky. The shroud in the most recent ICBM tests is a new feature. Prior to this a nosecone was used - and this is more typical of early missile development.

    So, it is quite likely that they'll need more work to get the shroud functioning properly - it isn't necessarily a requirement.

    You do it for one of two reasons: 1) You want to deploy multiple warheads on a single missile or 2) You want to deploy countermeasures.

    I believe that it is actually option 2 that would benefit NK the most at this point. Our missile defense systems are fairly week because they are extremely prone to countermeasure; however, they are decent at hitting a single non-countermeasured target (decent, but improving). We've got guys who know more about this than I do here, if they want to comment (and correct me).

    So I'm not sure if this recent usage of a shroud is more of a head fake to diminish confidence in our missile defense systems of countering a NK strike. Or if it continues to just be part of the natural evolution of their development. Perhaps both.

    But the key point I would make is that they don't *have* to figure the shroud out.
     
  4. dc4utvols

    dc4utvols Contributor

    We need to have PAC, THAAD, SMs, Iron beam in theater. Rebuild YAL ( may take too long). You want to hit it in boost if you can.

    Once you can shoot down his toys then its time for the B2s and B1s to give the SOB a haircut.
     
  5. TennTradition

    TennTradition Super Moderator

    Yeah I don't have any real faith in exo-atmospheric intercept.
     
  6. IP

    IP Advanced Pruitt Apologetics Bot

    I think it feeds into some's military bravado to talk like we can shoot anything that goes up, but I don't like to gamble with live nukes. And that is what that would be if part of a "plan"
     
  7. lumberjack4

    lumberjack4 Chieftain

    You have to remember that all of our live missile testing is scripted for success, run under ideal conditions, and only work ~60% of the time. It's a very hard thing to do. I sincerely hope we never have to deploy it for real, because theres a good chance one will make it through.
     
  8. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Realistically, what are we taking about losing, though? California?

    I think the risk is worth the loss.
     
  9. TennTradition

    TennTradition Super Moderator

    Yep. And there's also a past of doctored data.
     
  10. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    I'm as all-in on the military, and its many capabilities as it gets, but I wouldn't trust potentially hundreds of thousands of innocent lives to missile defense technology alone.

    My fear is that Un is at the tipping point of maximum danger, where he can neither retreat nor stop the advancement, even if it will almost certainly incite overwhelming military action against him. I don't see any other play that he has.

    And I don't see any viable option that would prevent his having a nuclear armed ICBM, short of the US striking him.

    Sometimes, there's no middle ground to be had. I fear that's the case now, and it's no longer a matter of "if" but "when".
     
  11. dc4utvols

    dc4utvols Contributor

    1.) half his missile fail.
    2.) there is no proof he can miniaturize
    3.) no proof his junk can survive re-entry
    4.) high estimate of 60 bombs not all of which can get on a missile. Probably a significantly lower amount
    5.) super limited number of ICBMs since they are a new part of his inventory.
    6.) limited economic ability to mass produce said weapons.
    7.) Thaad and PAC are proven systems so in theater is needed.
    8.) Give him time and he will have thermos mounted on ICBMs that can reach us and survive re-entry.
    9.) strike now before 8 becomes a sure thing.
    10.) Mac was right and Truman bungled it.
     
  12. MWR

    MWR Contributor

    All it takes is for one nuke to get thru. This guy Kim needs to be stopped. Maybe it is just one case of where the benefit outweighs the cost.
     
  13. IP

    IP Advanced Pruitt Apologetics Bot

    Well the cost will be millions of lives even now. Seoul will be shelled in an instant.

    Not saying we shouldn't or can't strike, but make no mistake that the window for the happiest timelines long closed. By decades.
     
  14. NorrisAlan

    NorrisAlan Put Custom Title Here

    yeah. It will take coordination unseen before to do our best to stealth bomb as much of their artillery along the DMZ as possible at the same time taking out any missile capability that they have. All within minutes of each other.
     
  15. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    I fear that this is becoming an increasingly clear and correct conclusion.

    If Kim goes, I believe that he'll not only gladly - but would greatly desire - to take the world, or as much of it he was able to destroy, out with him. He mustn't be allowed that chance.

    The available military options would need to be delivered with such surprise, speed, strength, and an overwhelmingly lethality of force as to exceed any operation in human history. Any military action would not only take an unprecedented coordination between the totality of our strategic resources (ie naval, air, ground, special forces, intelligence orgs, black ops / regime infiltration, cyber, etc.), but that the subsequent attack plan would need to be both initiated and advanced with near-perfect precision and timing (read: razor thin, and not in days or hours, but minutes and seconds). And even if (IF) all of it were perfectly executed, it could still see the loss of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, almost immediately upon the first bullet being fired.

    As gravely sombering as that reality is, it may still be ultimately preferred to allowing him an ICBM, or to even to allow him to only further increase his current stockpile of nuclear weapons.

    These are the many and good reasons why no one has yet done anything of substance to end the Un regime via military action. The difference is that they had the luxury of time, or at least believed that they did, however conveniently or naively that now appears, in hindsight.
     
  16. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    I'm enjoying the discussion and greatly desire that it not devolve into one of our atypical political shit-storms, or that I cause it to occur, but only mention this because of the similarities to our current difficulties elsewhere in the world - I absolutely believe that we are allowing the exact same thing, by making the exact same mistakes with Iran, as we made and allowed to occur in North Korea.

    Just read last week where they refused to allow UN and US inspectors to come in, as they had previously agreed (and we handsomely paid them) to do.

    We are a notoriously hard-headed and overly idealistic group, sometimes.
     
  17. NorrisAlan

    NorrisAlan Put Custom Title Here

    I hate war, and think it is the single greatest waste of human existence. But I cannot lie that thinking about the strategic and logistical needs is fascinating to me. I can see why Patton loved it so much, and why his death, while mundane and seemingly meaningless, probably saved him from years of misery.

    WWII was the last great land conquest war.
     
  18. MWR

    MWR Contributor

    Costing millions of lives now is a real possibility, but that cost will most likely go up instead of down in the future. Maybe a plan can be formulated to take him out before he gets the opportunity to act, thus sparing these millions of lives.
     
  19. dc4utvols

    dc4utvols Contributor

    “If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed;
    if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may
    come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

    "Americans Will Always Do the Right Thing — After Exhausting All the Alternatives"

    - Winston Churchill
     
  20. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Several of the closest and most loyal people around Kim are alleged to be capable of still launching birds (most are in the upper echelon of military) even if his head was blown off in this moment, and probably would do exactly that, because their goose would still be cooked just the same, without Kim and the continuation of his regime.

    And, can you find all of the mobile missile launchers in time? Would we even be certain as to how many there are, as of today?

    And if you kill him, everyone around him and get all of the mobile missile launchers - AND IN TIME - the North Korean artillery located all along the southern border would reduce Seoul to rubble in a matter of hours, if not minutes, and potentially killing hundreds of thousands of innocent South Koreans in that "total war" scenario.

    All of the easy decisions have been made, have thus far failed, and time seems to be rapidly running out.
     

Share This Page