Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods
MB. wrote:They absolutely do, or at least, Trump does. Did you not see Mattis' statement this morning? Trump prioritized DPRK as one of his first actions as president.
Do you think Bush "didn't want a war" in Iraq?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08 ... eople.html
anarchist23 wrote:I'm no expert in military logistics.
A nuclear attack would annihilate NKs leadership quickly whereas a conventional attack would take long enough for North Korea to decimate Seoul with biological and chemical weapons and for IBMs to be launched.
USA has over 4000 nuclear weapons and President Trump is insane.
One Degree wrote:I don't believe that is practical in this situation, and I have no real alternatives other than risking it. :?:
The citizens wondered why they alone had remained undisturbed for so long a time. There were fantastic rumors that the enemy had something special in mind for this city, but no one dreamed that the end would come in such a fashion as on the morning of August 6th.
MememyselfandIJK wrote:you really think China and Russia would just sit around? That would start WWIII
The United States is likely to "seriously consider" shooting down any North Korean missiles tests aimed at the waters around the US territory of Guam, but experts warn the technology isn't guaranteed to work.
Pyongyang doubled down on its threats to launch missiles at Guam early on Thursday, announcing a potential plan on state media for the "simultaneous fire of four Hwasong-12 (rockets)."
Adam Mount, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, told CNN the US military could use its THAAD defense system or Aegis destroyers to stop any North Korean projectiles. THAAD, or the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, is one of the US's main weapons against offensive missiles.
"If they had confidence from their readings that they would not hit US territory, it's possible they'd just let them fall into the sea, but I think they'd also take a very serious look at shooting them down," he said.
If the missiles landed within 40 kilometers (25 miles) of Guam, as threatened, according to UN law, they would fall within the United States' exclusive economic zone although not their territorial waters.
A￼fter North Korea's initial threat against Guam, the territory's Homeland Security Advisor George Charfauros told CNN he was confident of their defense systems.
"They've slowly developed their capabilities but we stand in high confidence with the US (Defense Department's) ability to not only defend Guam and the surrounding areas but also the continental US... There are several layers of ballistic missile defense."
But Bruce Bennett, a senior defense analyst at the Rand Corporation, told CNN it would ultimately be US President Donald Trump's decision whether to test their missile defenses.
"This is an experimental system — we could potentially miss or hit, we don't know for sure. And even people who make cell phones, who have substantially more testing than THAAD does, sometimes have cell phones burn up," he said.
Mount suggested an attempt to shoot down the missile might be exactly what Kim Jong Un wants, as missing even one projectile would be an embarrassment for the US military.
How would it work?
The United States and its allies have two primary missile defense options to intercept a missile between North Korea and Guam.
In South Korea, a recently deployed THAAD missile defense system would not be able to intercept a launch toward Guam but could quickly detect the launch on its radar.
G￼uam itself is equipped with its own THAAD missile system, which could intercept any missiles launched from Pyongyang toward the island.
"The system's designed to engage multiple targets simultaneously, so that should be quite feasible to do," Bennett said.
However, Bennett added, it depended how far away the missiles were targeted, as the total range of THAAD was 200 kilometers (124 miles). "The closer you get to that, you're stressing the performance of the system," he said.
Alternatively, United States destroyers equipped with Aegis ballistic missile defenses could take down a missile at an even longer range, before it re-enters the Earth's atmosphere.
"The US might decide to put an Aegis system much closer to Guam to have two levels of defense, but that's a presidential decision," he said.
Carl Schuster, a Hawaii Pacific University professor and former director of operations at the US Pacific Command's Joint Intelligence Center, told CNN a single ship equipped with Aegis could probably take out two missiles.
Calling America's bluff
The United States has long trumpeted its ability to defend against missiles that threatened the country's territory, which might be what Pyongyang is counting on.
In response to North Korean missile tests, the US military has tested its missile defense system in May, and multiple times in July, although they later admitted one had failed.
But Mount said Pyongyang's threats to launch multiple missiles at Guam could be a deliberate action to call the United States' bluff on missile defense.
"It was no accident that North Korea threatened to launch four missiles, it deliberately complicates the decisions of US policy makers," he said.
If any of the four long-range missiles successfully made it through US defense, Mount said, it would be a huge victory for the rogue state.
"If the United States did try to intercept the missiles they would want to intercept all of them, because failing to intercept them all would send a message about the (US's) limited capacity ... those systems aren't perfect," he said.
Bennett said North Korea would be hoping for the US to fail, but even if the missile defenses failed it wouldn't be a disaster.
"This is a system that has never been called upon to shoot down a North Korean missile before. As a result, asking to do that for the first time, if it does, great," he said.
"If it doesn't, that means you might have some sort of software or system failure and better to find that out in peacetime rather than at war."
B0ycey wrote:You do realise you are supporting nuclear war? If the US strikes first with a NUCLEAR BOMB, they would be isolated and internationally condemned. Even NATO wouldn't come to their aid. And May, her knickers would be pulled up quite quickly indeed (I would hope). Then you are risking China not responding. NK are not a threat to the US because they don't have the Arsenal. China could send a volley of nukes towards the US in one strike and they would have to shoot them all down. A very dangerous idea. The US would be risking everything for nothing.
As I said earlier, whoever strikes first loses. Regardless of NK rhetoric, they are not insane enough to do it (otherwise they would have done so by now). If Trump is, the quicker he gets impeached the bloody better.
To address the first statement, I don’t support th[…]
What? The problem with Corbyn is he won't come ri[…]
I acknowledge that you don't possess the ability[…]
@blackjack21 Blackjack21 is a smart guy but hi[…]