[Ixa]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... 0504052449

Kim . . . was asked if North Korea intended to use the weapons if the United States did not give in to its diplomatic and economic deamands.


"If the US attacks North Korea, North Korea will definitely use those nuclear weapons against the US mainland," he replied.


Would it also use them if an economic embargo was imposed?


"Yes, definitely," he said. "North Korea will use those nuclear weapons against the US mainland if America imposes additional economic sanctions on North Korea."

Thumbs up for North Korea.

[Tovarish Spetsnaz]

Just to clarify...that was not Kim Jong Il...that was another Kim...

I think this is propaganda...there is no way North Korea can have 100 nuclear missiles minimum (he also said 300 maximum)...

[Ixa]

Just to clarify...that was not Kim Jong Il...that was another Kim...

I think this is propaganda...there is no way North Korea can have 100 nuclear missiles minimum (he also said 300 maximum)...

Hopefully Kim was speaking truthfully.

[Boondock Saint]

Supernius ...

Why you would want 100 nukes lobbed across the globe with such glee I dont understand.

It's not that I take away the right of any nation to have nukes. I just have some apprehension when a nation so bluntly speaks of the use of such weapons.

100 or even 1 nuke used in this current global climate especially against the US would be devastating to the world.

Why?

Well for me the fact I am an American may bias my opinion naturally.

But for the world ... you know ... its not the swiftest idea to smack the biggest dog on the block, especially when your not sure if he is rabid and you know for a fact he has a massive bite that you CANNOT survive.

Nuking the US would be the worst thing any nation could do ... some feel 9/11 brought about an unreasonable response from the US in military terms ... imagine what a nuke in a US city would do ... do you honestly think the American people will be quieted with fear when we could retaliate ten times against those who attack us?

If N. Korea launched one nuke against one American city I would fully support the end of N. Korea. When I say end I don't mean the topple of Kim, I mean the end of the landscape and any living creature within those borders.

Call it crazy thats fine by me but I grew up where you don't sit down when someone else challenges you.

Of course ... I might not actually support using nukes when push comes to shove ... but certainly an invasion.

Economic sanctions is no reason to use nukes ... an invasion? I wouldnt fault them.

But as Tova said ... I chalk this up to propaganda.

[Putinist]

For the first time ever I agree with Tovarish! That North Korea is still a relatively poor nation that cannot just go from a handful or nukes to hundreds of nukes in one day. Propaganda this might yet be, and most likely is - I have to say, but there is no doubt in my mind that the North Koreans have at least a good handful of nukes pointed at the US mainland. But it's what the West don't know that they should be worrying about. Now I cannot honestly comment on what the North Korean military defence capabilies are like because I do not honestly know, but what I do know is that the vast underground nuclear city in Russia's Ural Mountains can and was built to withstand a nuclear war. North Korea may have missiles pointing at the Western coast of the US, but Russia have twice as many nuclear weapons pointing at the US and Britain from the Ural region.

But for the world ... you know ... its not the swiftest idea to smack the biggest dog on the block, especially when your not sure if he is rabid and you know for a fact he has a massive bite that you CANNOT survive.

Nuking the US would be the worst thing any nation could do ... some feel 9/11 brought about an unreasonable response from the US in military terms ... imagine what a nuke in a US city would do ... do you honestly think the American people will be quieted with fear when we could retaliate ten times against those who attack us?

If N. Korea launched one nuke against one American city I would fully support the end of N. Korea. When I say end I don't mean the topple of Kim, I mean the end of the landscape and any living creature within those borders.

North Korea aren't worried. They know where their allies where. They know who their allies are. They know where their enemies are. They know who their enemies are. To the south they've got an overt ally - China - which, like it or not, remains Red. To the north, they've got a covert ally - a secretly Red Russia. If they were solo and/or only had the backing of the developing communist countries of the Third World such as, for example, Cuba and Venezuala, then they would not even think about eyeing up the US. The bottom line is that, if the US attack North Korea, China will be forced to show their hand. Russia will also be forced to show intervention, and they can do this through a guise which Russia and Georgia tried during the Iraq crisis - the territorial excuse; that being that a war on the Korean peninsula, aside from being exceptionally bloody, could too easily spill over into the Russian Far East. And when Russia, China, and Japan are involved, it becomes a world war.

[Boondock Saint]

Putinist ...

Your assessment of N. Koreas allies is fair enough, I am not challenging that. But if the US spearheads a UN vote for sanctions against N. Korea and the UN votes for it and the UN enforces sanctions and N. Koreas reponse is a nuclear attack I dont think it would be wise for anyone to come to N. Koreas aid ... especially if it is the UN who approved the sanctions ... regardless of the role the US played in said sanctions ...

If anyone thinks the US damaged the UN's position with the Iraq war could u imagine what China and/or Russia would do to it by backing N. Korea after a nuclear attack in response to UN sponsored sanctions? The UN would fall apart in a day and the world would be more polarized then during the cold war ... well, whats left of it anyway ...

I would not fault N. Korea for using nukes in response to an invasion. The thing is ... N. Korea isnt all that big a plot of land, there is only so much space to hide these nukes ... the only way to deliver a nuke to the US would be via a missile. No plane would make it to the US with a bomb unless it were some secret invisible to radar plane ... but even then ... its a gamble.

So, these missile silos need to be somewhere ... a missile that can traverse the globe must be pretty large ... even if you could fit one on a truck or a mobile launcher (can you?) I would think the US has some intelligence as to their location, spy planes and satellites ... perhaps they could get a few missiles off but ... how many launch sites could they have?

At any rate ... I think its propaganda.

[Siberian Fox]

So, these missile silos need to be somewhere ... a missile that can traverse the globe must be pretty large ... even if you could fit one on a truck or a mobile launcher (can you?) I would think the US has some intelligence as to their location, spy planes and satellites ... perhaps they could get a few missiles off but ... how many launch sites could they have?

If I were in their position the mode of delivery I'd select would be..... truck.

Smuggle the weapon out of the country via China or Russia, and then send it around the world on a ship, dock it in Mexico or Canada and then straight over the border due to NAFTA. Then pick your city and blow it up. That leaves a dilema of "who done it?"

If you use a missile? Well that would be scary, the USA has a policy that if attacked by Nuclear weapons to just hit everybody that they don't like. That means that if N. Korea attacked the USA with a nuclear missile then the US would strike back at China, Iran, Libya, Syria and everyone else on their shit list before even waiting for their reaction. The logic behind this is that the USA planners figured that if they are going to be nuked they are not going to leave any of the other powers left to exploit the vacume in a post USA world.

For this reason, China might launch it's nukes first to aid the N. Korea if they took that road. Basically it's death for everybody so it isn't one N. Korea will take, and it knows that as long as it has Nukes the USA will never invade. N. Korea is just grandstanding with this to get consessions.

[blackbeard]

Everyone was afraid of muslim terror here in the west , there has been none cause muslims in the west are with millions of mulsims in the east who just want to do business and live in nice homes in nice towns and get along with everyone .

Many North Koreans dont want to fight , many asians here dont want Nukes going off so we have the same situation of " we are gonna get you " vs " you and what army ? " .

North Korea will fall apart due to global stress , thier own people will say " hey we want to unite Korea and we are now a nuclear nation " . What madman would want to destroy Korea reunificatin with Hyundai and such in the balance , the south can rebuild the north just like west Germany is rebuilding the east of the country .

This is a time of great chaos with mass media , it is also a time for men to be level headed and say " ya ok pal , you just leave everyone alone now " .

No matter what if the world plunges into chaos someday the human race will survive in our underground bunkers after an appocalypse but what good is a sunday afternoon walking around in a cave with no sunlight or plants or ocean air ?

Billions just want to wake up and go to work everyday , a few madmen hold a part of the future in the balance but even said North Korea is not then end , not yet !

[Boondock Saint]

If you use a missile? Well that would be scary, the USA has a policy that if attacked by Nuclear weapons to just hit everybody that they don't like. .

See I have heard this many times ... but ... I never buy it. I just find it difficult to believe that anyone other then the highest officials actually know what will be done and I even doubt that they have no doubt about what to do. Anything that has reached us (meaning the little people) was possibly leaked intentionally, possibly made up, possibly something brought up by a disgruntled former official who wants to seem important for an interview, possibly was something tossed out there in a brain storming scenerio and all of a sudden becomes policy cause someone once said 'well what if.' ... meanwhile ... its not even close to what policy is ... but who knows?

China launching nukes against the US along with N. Korea doesnt make sense either ... I mean ... it would mean the end of China too ...

The nuke concept you give about the truck in through Canada into the US is a frightening scenerio for us here. If it happens though there arent too many directions where our eyes might go ... and the response would be pretty harsh as I have already suggested.

Anyway, I would rather not see nukes used at all, ever.

Anyway, I would rather the US stepped out of the issue with N. Korea. I would rather we pulled up stakes and left S. Korea and left N. Korea to the region to deal with. If N. Korea invades S. Korea then its up to the UN to do something. The US will offer its heartfealt disaproval of the invasion and offer monetary aid to the UN but no forces other then those needed to defend our ally Japan and Taiwan.

[Putinist]

If you use a missile? Well that would be scary, the USA has a policy that if attacked by Nuclear weapons to just hit everybody that they don't like. That means that if N. Korea attacked the USA with a nuclear missile then the US would strike back at China, Iran, Libya, Syria and everyone else on their shit list before even waiting for their reaction.

That is just not true.

In the 1990s, President Clinton directed the US military to absorb a nuclear first strike rather than launch on warning - which would be the only true deterrent to a first strike on the West. The direction orders that the remaining military will prepare to retaliate afterward. That first strike will take down all command and control, all bombers - since none would be on alert), most missiles, and all satellite and submarine communications. That is not a good scenario.

According to the House Armed Services Committee, the following reductions have taken place during the Clinton Administration: Strategic and General Purpose Forces from 1990 to 1997: B-52 Bombers have gone from 220 to 56. B-1 Bombers from 90 to 60; Strategic Defense Interceptor Aircraft from 36 to 0; and Army Divisions, from 1990 to 1997, have gone from 18 Active down to 10. Reserve divisions have gone from 10 to 8. Army Brigades (1990 to 1997) have declined from 8 Active to 3 and Reserve brigades have gone down from 27 to 18.

If such a policy as you say had been true, then we would have seen mass bombing throughout the Arab and Muslim world, again - not a good scenario for the US to get into however enraged they may be, within the first two months after the September 11 tragedy. All we got was a much-deserved but nonetheless bloody month-long bombing of Afghanistan.

[Boondock Saint]

If such a policy as you say had been true, then we would have seen mass bombing throughout the Arab and Muslim world, again

I thought we were talking about nuke attacks? 9/11 was hardly a nuke ...

I think that fox was saying that scenerio was in place for a nuke strike ... not a conventional terror attack (by conventional I mean the weapon used not the tactics.)

So ... by saying that the lack of such a response to a terror attack proves that such a response does not exist to a nuke attack seems to be comparing apples and oranges ...

I dont support Fox's assertion that such a response would be used, I just don't think that the response of the US for 9/11 disproves it.

As for what Clinton had done ... well, Clinton isnt sitting in the oval office anymore ... and what WE know of US forces may not be true ... we don't actually know ...

[Siberian Fox]

I dont support Fox's assertion that such a response would be used,

That wasn't my point either, my point was that it is what the public have been told the policy is. Hence, something China might take into account in it's own decision making.

Whether it is true or not is irrelevant, all that matters is that does China take it seriously?

[AnotherDeadHero]

According to the House Armed Services Committee, the following reductions have taken place during the Clinton Administration: Strategic and General Purpose Forces from 1990 to 1997: B-52 Bombers have gone from 220 to 56. B-1 Bombers from 90 to 60; Strategic Defense Interceptor Aircraft from 36 to 0; and Army Divisions, from 1990 to 1997, have gone from 18 Active down to 10. Reserve divisions have gone from 10 to 8. Army Brigades (1990 to 1997) have declined from 8 Active to 3 and Reserve brigades have gone down from 27 to 18.

That may be true however George W Bush's budget for the Department of Energy reportedly requests nuclear spending funds 'nearly 50% higher than The Cold War average; http://www.ananuclear.org/dcdays02release.html. Whatever reductions Clinton made have been ridiculed by Bush's excessive nuclear spending.

For those interested in more detailed documentation of arms spending in the Nuclear age check out the Arms Control Chronology;
http://www.cdi.org/products/acc.pdf

This is just one of the numerous documents published by the CDI. A few more interesting ones include;
The Cost of Preparing to Fight a Nuclear War
vs. Preventing Nuclear War
http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/nukecost.html
The humerous, insane and disturbing Selected Nuclear Quotations
http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/nukequo.html

[Putinist]

Yeah, I might need to update that information then. Certainly I am aware this year that President Bush has pledged to boost the military spending, and there is also talk that he possibly will reform the country's military requirements. But certainly the thing about "absorbing" a full nuclear attack still stands.

[AnotherDeadHero]

But certainly the thing about "absorbing" a full nuclear attack still stands.

Agreed. Back to my pretext point in the other Korea thread.

[TUC]

I recon that if North korea would fier those weapons South korea will become a radio active island.....because the north will definetly be bombed back into the sea....literaly....

[blackbeard]

The Russian cruise missels were designed to carry a nuclear payload . They have a range of 1600 km so they would be launched from a boat off the east or west coast or gulf of mexico most likely .

Nuking North Korea is not an option , maybee a few relaiatory strikes but the north korea nuking the south is not sane nor does it have any tactical striking point besides to be a jonestown like situation where everyone drinks the kool aid .

The terrorist attack on the US by sea with nukes or smuggleled into the country to be detonated on the ground makes no sense cause it would cause a massive conventional bombardment of North Korea which only hurts innocent people .

If attacked we have to ask ourselves WHY this is happening and WHO , a rogure sub could destroy kalifornia but an instant response of a nuke in North Korea might not be the solution , I would stress not even using MOAB at all in theatre no matter what due to the fact that North Korea and China and Pakinstan and India might start fighting destroying a few countries in thier regions only eliminates a billion or more people , population control with large section fo the earth unscated , the US and Russia not firing off thier nuclear arsenal and Isreal standing put while the three nuclear capable countries of China , North Korea and India obliterate each others cities with our world one big mess with less mouths to feed and the US and Great Britian playing cop trying to keep as many people safe as possible .

China does not need to be dragged into this nor does India , Russia and Pakistan are allies and only a desperate act would lead to a supposed cruise missel attack on the US .

007 its up to you to save the day !

Like a James Bond novel classic

[Demosthenes]

I'm not really sure if we should waste time debating this, The odds of N. Korea having that much nuclear capacity is slim to none. The distinction between Iraq & N. Korea has always been that N. Korea admits and brags about the weapons while Iraq denied they had them.

The difference is that a country that denies they have a weapon that they really do have is more likely to use it, while the country that admits they have them is more looking for political gains. Kim Jong Il may have the largest collection of Donald Duck cartooons in the world but he's not stupid, Whether or not he seriously damaged the US, N. Korea would be no more.

As for Chinese intervention, well our army is expontentially better than it was during the Korean war, while their's has only begun improving marginally in the last ten years. According to Jane's.com China only has 20 ICBMs. That is not enough to destroy the US. Hurt us maybe, yes. Ole' Boony might be swimming with the fishes, but not nearly enough to stop us from completely destroying N. Korea completely, not to mention seriously damaging China's ability to do anything for quite some time.

But all this is moot anyway. N. Korea will continue to rattle sabres until we get bored. We'll put our foot down, and grant them some concession or other and it will all be over.

[ahab]

Why would N Korea want to do a nuclear strike against the US? No matter who is their allies, N Korea would not be left standing afterwords. If N Korea/US were to take this to war I would expect China and Russia to become involved due to their proximity.

I strongly doubt that China and Russia would support N Korea. China and Russia have been pressing for N Korea to drop their nuke weapons programs and both have cut off resources and economic ties to N Korea. The UN would most likely be behind any action against N Korea. China and Russia both know that if they were to get into a direct conflict with the US it would be a very large war and victory would be a painful thing. The worst thing I forsee from this conflict is a revival of the cold war, the US and friends vs. a rebuilding Russia and a developing China. (yes I read your Golitsyn thread)

If you had a brother that was publicly admiting breaking contracts with the most influential person in town, would you tell your brother to be quiet, help your brother beat up the other person, or would you help your brother reconsile things with the other person?

In the 1990s, President Clinton directed the US military to absorb a nuclear first strike rather than launch on warning - which would be the only true deterrent to a first strike on the West. The direction orders that the remaining military will prepare to retaliate afterward. That first strike will take down all command and control, all bombers - since none would be on alert), most missiles, and all satellite and submarine communications. That is not a good scenario.

Including all the nuclear subs, bombers and missiles in foreign countries, all the sites protected from balistic missiles, NORAD (anyone know the rating of explosion that NORAD can withstand?), all the redundancy? Only Russia's nuclear capability meets the requirements to knock out a major portion of the US's military, and their taking action against the US is doubtful.

According to the House Armed Services Committee, the following reductions have taken place during the Clinton Administration: Strategic and General Purpose Forces from 1990 to 1997: B-52 Bombers have gone from 220 to 56. B-1 Bombers from 90 to 60; Strategic Defense Interceptor Aircraft from 36 to 0; and Army Divisions, from 1990 to 1997, have gone from 18 Active down to 10. Reserve divisions have gone from 10 to 8. Army Brigades (1990 to 1997) have declined from 8 Active to 3 and Reserve brigades have gone down from 27 to 18.

Yes the US's military is smaller, but tell me who is going to be able to stand against it. A combonation of Russia and China could, but again, that eventuality is doubtful.

so... communism would win by devastating much of the earth and wiping out opposition with violence... whata victory...

[KurtFF8]

Thumbs up for North Korea.

yeah down with world peace!!! right?


and the N. Koreans are bullshitting, they dont have 100 nukes period, maybe 1-5 but not 100.