Where is OPpenheimer?

>>35065677
Some edgelord newfag decided he'd ruin it for everyone and dox him

File: 1504435888627.png (496KB, 897x498px) Image search: [Google]

496KB, 897x498px

>>35065677
He still posts, but not this late. He has a life... still.

>>35065831
Steering a nice wide berth around NK, I see.

He said he wouldn't be posting as often anymore. He still does post though

>>35065677

He posted in the first thread when Kim first made the announcement. He even predicted Kim would shortly test the bomb he had as proof, by about two hours (I think). Check the archive.

In the earlier thread there was a picture of fallout with using small nuclear bombs, vs the icbm warheads. Anyone saved it?

>>35065831
Any chance an airplane hits the missile accidentally?

>>35065677
He posted yesterday on a KJU thread, dummy.

>>35065677
There is not really much to add.

Technically have the day off, so Ill be checking this thread from time to time today.

>>35067384
Let's assume NK has actually achieved a fusion bomb. What kind of timeline would you give their sad little country before they are capable of loading them on intermediate to potentially intercontinental missiles?

I'm not sure what's scarier to be honest, them having the ability to mount a fusion capable nuclear weapon on a missile, or the fact that said missile is just as likely to hit an unintended target as it is the one they are aiming at.

>>35067384
Hey Oppen, I have a question regarding PALs. If you can't answer I understand.
I was talking to a friend with an EE degree about PALs (in the context of "what would happen if someone stole a US nuke"), and he was saying something about any such device being easily hackable once you have physical access. How true is this? Don't they have some sort of anti-handling device?
Also, how difficult is it really to construct a new triggering mechanism for a given full physics package? He was saying something about commercially available atomic clocks and sim software being sufficient, but surely there's more to it than that?

>>35067384
Good to see you around, man.

Since my understanding of anything nuclear is piss-poor, I have to ask you:

Suppose Kim decides to launch his most powerful nuke. Last I heard it was in the 100kt+ range. Also, suppose he actually has a plan in mind to do SOMETHING, whatever the fuck that is.

Does he actually have any way to achieve anything other than get his shit pushed in by everyone else? I mean....what is their endgame? Do they even have a goal?

>>35067406
As I understand it the Hwasong-14 ICBM is capable of carrying this latest bomb that they have developed, and is also capable of reaching the continental US.

That's why there's such a big fuss this time because a) they are now testing nukes in the three digit-kiloton-range and b) they seem to actually have a delivery system for it.

>>35065677
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5561330818001/?#sp=show-clips

must be working

>>35067420
Not OPpenheimer but im wondering if there is a severe amount of instability in the regime and he's doing this as a show of strength. He purged a lot of popular guys, eventually people will respond to that.

Alternatively, they are testing the waters of the new diplomatic environment. They can potentially get away with more, but they have to find the "new normal".

Lastly, as we cut off whats left of their economic ties, they have to show that they wont be deterred; the leader HAS to save face, any deal must appear to be on DPRKs terms and in accordance with their desires (or look to be).

File: 1463505403777.jpg (31KB, 598x398px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 598x398px

>>35067406
Iran let their scientists give North Korea their work on nuclear bombs, so they could be tested in North Korea.

Now Iran, North Korea, and possibly terrorist groups will have nuclear weapons.

>>35067409

Not oppen but from what ive read they have anti-tampering mechanisms as well. Like if it detects that someone is attempting to improperly open the nuke casing or fuck around with the software, the nuke will intentionally misfire and bork itself to make it so that it can no longer be detonated. So even if you could replace the software and triggering mechanism completely, you would need to pretty much rebuild the whole nuke anyways which sort of defeats the purpose.

You would basically need to be very intimate with the nuke design as well as knowing how the software is designed to pull it off. The only people with this knowledge would be people who work in the field already - people who are kept on a very neatly maintained list so they dont randomly drop off the face of the earth at the same time a nuke goes missing. Any foreign state actor would probably have an easier time acquiring a nuke from their own nation rather than from us.

>>35067406
>What kind of timeline would you give their sad little country before they are capable of loading them on intermediate to potentially intercontinental missiles?
They probably have the ability to do this now. Is it operational in the sense that they have deployed the system to forces that would operate them? Probably not.

It is probably a year or so for that, but that doesn't mean that they can not launch missile if they need to.

>>35067409
>any such device being easily hackable once you have physical access. How true is this?
Your friend misunderstands what PALs can do. Older ones absolutely. he is correct. One in service now are different.

>Don't they have some sort of anti-handling device?
Correct.

>Also, how difficult is it really to construct a new triggering mechanism for a given full physics package?
Is it your physics package? Not very. Is it someone else's? Moderate to very hard. If you have multiple packages it would help as you could dismantle it.

>He was saying something about commercially available atomic clocks and sim software being sufficient, but surely there's more to it than that?
Yes. If you do not know how the pit is constructed, it is difficult to know how to compress it properly. You could brute force it, but you are likely to get a fizzle.

>>35067420
>Does he actually have any way to achieve anything other than get his shit pushed in by everyone else?
Sure. there are many reason he might use a nuclear weapon. He may feel that a demonstration of capability or resolve is needed to increase deterrence or to induce compellence. He may fell that his target is limited enough that the US will have a difficult time justifying a full nuclear response.
These are just examples. Whether these are miscalculations on his part depends on the circumstances of the crisis.

>>35067420
>I mean....what is their endgame? Do they even have a goal?
One or both of the following (opinions are split):
1) Preservation of the regime and a tool towards normalization of relations and talks.

2) To split the US and ROK, allowing the DPRK to deter US intervention in the peninsula and giving the DPRK more ability to inflict its will on ROK (not necessarily forced reunification, but its possible)

>>35067473
>One in service now are different.
Can you elaborate on that?
Thanks!

Are left-of-launch ABMs launched from aircraft loitering in or around NK airspace a feasible way to stop their missiles?

>>35067469
>intentionally misfire
Setting off the HE improperly would result in an explosion powerful enough to destroy the tamperer, his workshop, and the device without initiating a nuclear event, correct?

>>35065992

Aviation laws require airliners to be within a certain distance of land at all times (~300km iirc) so if an emergency happens they arnt in the middle of nowhere. If you look at flight routes over the oceans youll notice they take routes that skim near islands and landmasses rather than the fastest, most direct route across.

North korea is basically seen as not being land according to these regulations, as landing there isnt an option nor will any rescuers come from there. So the airliners keeping a wide berth has more to do with staying within regulations rather than a fear of being shot down or some shit.

Is killing Kim Jong Un an option, or was it ever?
I don't mean like the 78th option presented to the Commander-in-Chief after he turns down the previous 77, but like an actual option.

Ignoring the fact that he probably will have some kind of dead man's switch on the nukes pointed at whatever is within their range, how would the people react to his assassination? How would the rest of the regime react? As I understand it the family of Kim is the "eternal leader"-family, would they find a new one?

>>35067511
>left-of-launch
What?

Hey OPpen, I asked this on the last thread, but, I figured it'd be worth another shot.

Would this fusion weapon be enough to cause an EMP across North America? (Ie reducing US electrical network to slag)?

>>35067509
>Can you elaborate on that?
More advanced. Digital encryption of Unique Signal generation.
Think of it like data encryption. You cant read the data without a key. With the PALs you get get the PAL to generate the unique signal without the right 'key'.

Older ones were much simpler, however.


>>35067534
Probably not.

>norks have nukes
Well, fucking awesome. He might have them, but even he isn't crazy or stupid enough to use them.

I feel like everyone with nukes is in some fucked up club where they bluff and bluster and posture themselves....but nobody ever does anything.

Kinda like niggers before they (don't) fight.

>>35067521
Yes, you'll probably get some fission but it would be in the tons range at best and, considering that finely divided uranium burns and plutonium even autoignites (even at room temperature) you'd be lucky to recover a critical mass of fissile material.

So. When are we going to strike? There seems to be no non military solution to this.

Iran builds a couple reactors and they get bombed to shit, Norks test nuclear weapons and nothing??

>>35067521

Possibly, it obviously wouldnt be a fullscale nuclear explosion but an extremely minor one would be possible i suppose. I think the more likely scenario is it just becomes a white hot radioctive mess that kills everyone in the room and makes any further work more or less impossible without starting from scratch. The anti tampering mechanism are designed specifically to both avoid a useful explosion as well as make any further tampering a completely fruitless effort.

>>35067569
America isn't Israel and Iran didn't have a knife to the throat of a nearby major city with innumerable artillery pieces.

>>35067490
>>35067473
>possible goal of reunification, combined with preservation of the regime, and keeping it low key enough to avoid a nuclear response

I feel like that specific combination is what he's aiming for, but I could be wrong. However, hitting that particular target is/could be tricky as all fuck.

>>35067532

I think there's one more "son" that could take the role if needed, and there's a sister (I think) and/or a sister of Jong-Il. Or the military might just say enough is enough after 70 years of bullshit and decide to take the reigns themselves. At the end of the day they're all greedy fuckers that want to live high off the hog like barons in a fiefdom. Probably just need the rest of the Old Guard (the Korean War era guys) that grew up with daddy and granddaddy to die of before there will be enough motivation to actually do something.

If I were the US, I'd find a couple of high ranking NK Generals, offer them a place in a new Democratic government, a ton of money, and immunity for all "crimes" in exchange for a successful coup. Immediate integration with ROK is not an option anyway. Should be the end goal, but this is something that's going to take decades and I think you do a little at a time while establishing a new DMZ at the Chinese border to quell tensions. That's your biggest challenge anyway, and quite possible Chinese are currently paying NK officers and Generals NOT to coup. China loses it's Korean and Japanese buffer if NK goes down.

>>35067578
Yes America is a military power house many times the size of Israel.

Iran has enough scuds and rocket artillery to put the hurt on Israel at any time.

>>35067569
>When are we going to strike?
Never.
Probably.

>There seems to be no non military solution to this.
There is no real military solution that doesnt cost too much for the US to justify.

>Iran builds a couple reactors and they get bombed to shit, Norks test nuclear weapons and nothing??
Iran got bombed?

>>35067490
What risk is there of fallout in Japan if the US were to go whole hog on eliminating the norks?

>>35067409
your friend is probably applying a maxim from computer security, that being that once you have physical access to a device, you can do whatever you want to it. that's true when you're dealing with computers, servers, etc, but it falls apart when you're dealing with a device engineered to lock you out.

I just want to see the Norks drop a nuke on Hiroshima again. Just think of how butthurt the japs would be. They probably wouldnt even bother rebuilding it this time.

>>35067588
Reintegration is something that would be so economically destructive it isn't anywhere close to a good idea.

>>35067592
>scuds and rocket artillery
The problem is quantity of weaponry with the needed range,and the fact that th Israelis don't fuck around and the Iranians don't want to find out the hard way if the nuclear cruise missiles are real.

>>35067600
Pretty substantial risk.
Nothing lethal in the short term, but increased cancer, other chronic diseases would increase in areas with heavy fallout.

>>35067597
>Iran got bombed?
I thinkhe's confusedi with Iraq and operation Opera.

>>35067603
Makes sense.

>>35067610

It can eventually be done. I'd call it a 20-30 year plan realistically.

>secure NK
>UN Peacekeepers overseeing the North along with a transitional government
>dismantle the DMZ
>Build up the area since Seoul is overpopulated
>NK's that see the light get integrated immediately, everyone else gets sent North voluntarily to NK territory, where appearances would be kept up to keep the loyalist civilians happy.
>Slowly integrate more and more land into the Republic of Korea
>Admittedly, a rump NK state might be necessary for the long haul

>>35067600
Google babies in Hiroshima and you'll have a very good idea as to why Japan would be the first one to do their best no nukes are ever set off in the area.

>>35067645

They can just import Muslim babies and their refugee parents and stop being racist bigots. :)

America needs to just put total sanctions on the Norks and anyone who doesn't sanction them.

Who is Oppenheimer and why does everyone suck his dick?

>>35067626
If you were asked right now by the president on what you'd do to NK, how would you answer?

>>35067687
lurk moar

File: Many Edges.png (287KB, 1024x596px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 1024x596px

>>35067662
>you

>>35067682
>sanctions
Exactly what do you think this means?

>>35067687
Hello newfriend.
Oppen is the resident IRL nuke expert, who's willing to teach autists here the truth about nukes.
Listen to him and learn.

>>35067687
>being this new

>>35067693
Time to make a deal. There is no military solution.
It is time to sit down and see what kind of compromise we can make. Offer to scale down US/ROK military drills. See what they offer up.

>>35067697
Been here for a few years. I usually ignore tripfags because I've been in /arg/ once.

>>35067712
>Oppen is the resident IRL nuke expert
Neat

>>35067643
>20-30 years
>north koreans

eventually no one is going to give a fuck about the North Korean people if you try to waste so much wealth on it, they would rather gas the entire country than spend 20-30 years at war and untold trillions.

this war, if it happens, will not be pleasant for the North Korean people.

File: F-16.jpg (57KB, 600x425px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 600x425px

>>35067629
Didn't the israelis bomb iranian NPP's?
Also, the idea of the IAF just swooping in and bombing iran just makes me giggle for some reason

>>35067725
>Time to make a deal. There is no military solution.
At what point would NK demands leave no other option? I'm assuming SK wouldn't agree to being subsumed.

>>35067736
Israel hacked the centrifuge computers but hasn't bombed Iran to my knowledge.
Also is that a fuel tank on the 6th station? I didn't know F-16 outwr pylons could carry them. Israeli mod, perhaps?

>>35067725
We've technically been at war with North Korea for 60 years and we have no military options??

So we're going to keep appeasing them and encouraging their behavior? What happens when they have a operational, tested, MIRV capable, ICBM in 20 years and we just have our dick in our hand? They're not going to stop. And you know that.

>>35067745
>At what point would NK demands leave no other option? I'm assuming SK wouldn't agree to being subsumed.
Reducing conventional forces would have to be contingent on denuclearization.


there can be no deal that leaves ROK out to dry.

>>35067726
Oppenheimer is pretty much the only tripfag I haven't filtered.

>>35067727
Suppose your plan is executed. How would you do it? Round up only certain individuals and give them special showers? Or just set the whole country on fire, a la Dresden? Every last person wiped out, or leave some to rebuild the country?

>>35067725
The US representative already said "we kicked the can down the road long enough; there is no more road." They already think there's nothing left to do. What *sanctions* or other actions CAN be made? This is almost like the trying to argue with a child, inasmuch as the child can basically say "nah, fuck you" and disregard anything that anyone tries to do.

Sanctions are routinely ignored because they sanctions specifically name companies, and then that same day the named companies change their names and continue about their way.

>>35067757
>They're not going to stop.
But they always do. Eventually someone just says "fuck it", gives him whatever he needs then everything goes back to normal. Rinse and repeat every 1-3 years. This time there's just a bit more flexing than normal.

>>35067757
>We've technically been at war with North Korea for 60 years and we have no military options??
There are tons.
All of them incur losses and costs that are too high to pay.
The window for military options has closed. Blame whichever administration you would like, they all had some hand in it, but thats the reality.


>So we're going to keep appeasing them and encouraging their behavior?
No.
We will try to make a deal.

>What happens when they have a operational, tested, MIRV capable, ICBM in 20 years and we just have our dick in our hand?
Probably the same thing we did when the Soviets deployed their first operational, tested, MIRV capable ICBM.

>They're not going to stop. And you know that.
I do not know that.

>>35067763
Ignorant question here. Given NKs lack of conventional resources, is it so stupid to use rapid first strike to cripple infrastructure? I realize that a big part of their recent tests have been focused on mobility, but surely even the mobile platforms carry with them large enough convoys to be spotted with enough obssesive assets used to narrow the area. For that matter isn't positioning of launch just as important in mobile assets? Couldn't that data along with solid investigation give a pretty good picture of possible targets and therefore launch sites?

>>35067727

Feasible back in the day but not anymore. While I agree that just staging a "do over" would be best logically, it's not going to work internationally. I mean, for Christ's Sake, they're bitching about Buddhists putting down insurgent inshallah's in Burma.

>>35067777

Daddy was much better at these negotiations. Fatty didn't have enough time to learn the ropes and he's a Millennial raised in Western Europe so he thinks he knows everything.

>>35067786
So your plan is to appease a madman and live under the threat of nuclear destruction because today it's too hard to remove them and a few lives today are worth more than many more tomorrow. Smart.

We're at a fork in the road and, mark my words, if we do nothing many more will perish

>>35067774
>Suppose your plan is executed. How would you do it? Round up only certain individuals and give them special showers? Or just set the whole country on fire, a la Dresden? Every last person wiped out, or leave some to rebuild the country?

The thing about not giving a shit about them is that you don't have to give a shit about them.

Just keep them away from the borders as a courtesy.

>>35067792
Let me be clear.

There are scores of military options. Almost all of them have a reasonable chance of 'success'. They also have a significant risk of massive loss of Korean, Japanese, and American lives.

That risk makes any military option unattractive compared with sitting down and talking, and compromising.

If they refuse to compromise, then we are back to square one, with deterrence being the rule.

>>35067756
They bombed Iranian centrifuge facilities back in the late 80s. Now Iranian enrichment facilities are substantially more hardened and it is less likely they would be able to do it again.

>>35067794
>Daddy was much better at these negotiations.
No doubt, but I still don't think anything will come of this other than everything going back to normal. Except maybe Japan reinstating it's military, but even that is a stretch.

>>35067823
Did they? I don't remember that, got sauce?

>>35067822
Interesting, but I guess what I was really more asking was about NK infrastructure. I was under the assumptions they have just the bare minimum to keep the country really running, and that a peaceful Chinese sanction could really put the hurt on, but still allow compromise. I've been really curious about the Chinese's actions this whole time. I can't imagine they are pleased with NK nukes and it interests me very much how it seems they have given western blessing for "retaliation" even if that should never happen.

>>35067817
>So your plan is to appease a madman and live under the threat of nuclear destruction because today it's too hard to remove them and a few lives today are worth more than many more tomorrow. Smart.
I (and your parents) lived under the threat of nuclear destruction for decades.


If you strike the DPRK, many people will certainly die. It is possible a US city may be directly attacked.

If you do nothing, the DPRK *might* launch an attack down the road, but there is also a chance that they will be deterred, and nothing will happen.

>>35067850
Sanctions are widely despised and ridiculed, sometimes rightfully so. But, enforced properly. they can be effective.

The Chinese are most displeased with the DPRK currently.

>>35067817
I would happily sit down and talk now like Opp suggests while we develop better missile defence systems. THAAD and AEGIS don't work on ICBMs and GMD has a 50% success rate in picture perfect conditions, with clearly outlined targets and never at night.

In other words, you could engage in a conflict with them now and have a conflict where you essentially flip a coin for millions of South Korean, Japanese and American lives OR you could buy time for our smart people to build a missile defence system with a higher success rate.

>>35067850
Oh and were my assumptions about mobile assets even close to true or are they actually light on their feet

>>35067852
>If you strike the DPRK, many people will certainly die. It is possible a US city may be directly attacked.

If America/South-Korea/Japan strikes the DPRK then Kim will decide if he wants to die for his political goals, if so there will be a war.

>>35067868
Mobile assets complicate targeting to a large degree, not because they are hard to find, but because your kill chain may impose unavoidable delays that mean that by the time you are ready to strike, the targets are elsewhere.

>>35067883
how much overpressure can mobile launchers stand? 5 psi?

>>35067883
I would imagine Norm launch facilities have some kind of power independence, since I assume they require a fair amount of juice. Could leveraging sanctions targeting their power supplies be effective enough to turn nuke capabilities to effective 0? I don't know a ton about their power grid, but I assuming they either run off a large dam or coal plant, but likely get a chunk of juice from China. Are my thoughts here correct?

>>35067822
>That risk makes any military option unattractive compared with sitting down and talking, and compromising.

I've thought the other day and have to ask this. US is clearly in check right now and couldn't mount a real offensive without fucking up its alliances in Asia in the process.

How about China or Russia, though?
Couldn't they just as easily attack and win over North Korea without too much bullshit? With NK artillery and everything targeted at Seoul and the US, wouldn't them crossing the border and trouncing the place make for a fairly rational military solution to the problem?

>>35067879
At least Kim has murdered most of his family members (purportedly)--maybe there won't be any more Kims anywhere near Korea.

Big bonus.

>>35067907
The missile is the weak point in that. The launchers are fairly robust. 5 PSI is probably enough to damage the missile.

>>35067926
They have plenty of coal

>>35067938
>How about China or Russia, though?
I do not think Russia has the logistical capability to maintain an offensive into the DPRK.
China probably could.

It is unlikely either would be willing to do that baring some extraordinary event.

File: anti-ballistic-missiles-i-71-638.jpg (72KB, 638x479px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 638x479px

>>35067862
>THAAD and AEGIS don't work on ICBMs and GMD has a 50% success rate in picture perfect conditions, with clearly outlined targets and never at night.

Granted, but would it really matter if it's day or night that much? I would think a "night" engagement would be better, since the kill vehicles use IF for targetting.

Assuming day/night cycles matter. BMD is an exoatmosphereic interceptor isn't it?

>>35067938
Realistically, both countries CAN do so, and it will leave the US mostly alone. I don't believe that either would because it means that they would lose buffer zones and manpower while still facing negative reactions from the rest of the world.

>>35067959
>It is unlikely either would be willing to do that baring some extraordinary event.

Obviously, but it is sound from a military standpoint.

>>35067959
>The launchers are fairly robust.
what do you think they could take?

>5 PSI is probably enough to damage the missile.
would that be from the side, or the front on? or is that all aspect?

>>35067959

>They have plenty of coal

We just need to fly the Kardashians over there. They're experts at burning coal.

>Clinton kept the Norks from starving during the 90's Famine
>Liberals got mad when Bush used food to negotiate
>~20 years later they have nukes

Clinton should have let them all starve.

>>35067969
>I don't believe that either would because it means that they would lose buffer zones

I don't know about you, but the Cold War ended quite a while ago.
It's not a buffer zone for China, it's literally a wound bleeding money that could have been made if NK weren't retarded and they could use the place to trade with South Korea and Japan more effectively.

>>35067961
Some physicist said that the sun heating the target aids in targeting it. I'm not sure about the validity of those claims, but the fact that all the tests have been done in broad daylight, except for one (which failed), and it still has a 55% success rate, tells me there might be issues with night-time intercepts.

It has never been tested against a target using countermeasures either. Granted, the Hwasong-14 may not have very sophisticated countermeasures, but it's a dangerous assumption imo

>>35068043
Then ignore the buffer zone comment.

File: Hibex.jpg (50KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 500x375px

>>35067862
>GMD has a 50% success rate in picture perfect conditions

Bring back Sprint!

>Weight 7,700 pounds (3,500 kg)
>Length 26.9 feet (8.20 m)
>Diameter 53 inches (1.35 m)
>Warhead W66 nuclear low kt

>>35068092
>nuclear intercept missiles for nuclear ICBMs

Fighting fire with fire as it were, eh?
I like it.

>>35067725
>Offering compromise to Norks with Nukes who WILL use them if they know they can do it with impunity

Cool beans

Could the US use the threat to reintroduce nukes to South Korea and/or Japan to "protect them" but really use them pressure China reign in North Korea?

>>35068100
The W66 (warhead used in the Sprint) is pretty badass in its own right:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W66

>It was designed to destroy or disable an incoming warhead using neutron flux, and to a lesser extent X-ray and blast effects

Not quite as cool as Project Excalibur, but easier to make and cheaper to field.

They can't be allowed to have enough Nukes to fire them while also ensuring MAD. They could do literally anything of that happened.

>>35067959
How effective do you believe THAAD would be, were it to be deployed against a missile targeted at, say, Guam?

In my very short reading on the subject, some physicist guy claimed it was like trying to hit a bullet with another bullet. I'm not sure how much merit there is to that statement, but that's what I have read.

>>35068125

>giving nukes to gooks

Don't think that's a wise idea. They'll just end up nuking each other like Pakistan and India are going to do one day.

>>35068175
And who's going to stop them? Both China and Russia have North Korea's back in this just to spite the United States, and seem willing to defend them if the US attacks them.

>>35068092

Fuck yes! It blew my mind that we built beasts like that back in the 50's.

>5Mt warhead on an interceptor

Fund it again!

>>35068196
Probably a good plan to let the chinks and russkies bitch slap KJU if he gets too uppity, but "would they" is really the question.

>>35068125
Japan has some interesting space rocket designs, like the M-V and follow-on Epsilon rockets. They are both three-stage solid fueled boosters, which can loft about one and a half tonnes into low-earth orbit.

Hmm, solid fueled rockets that can launch a tonne or so of shit into orbit.

By the way, do you remember the Hayabusa probe back in 2003-10? They managed to recover some material from the asteroid it was sent to explore. A capsule was sent back to earth, where it re-entered the atmosphere safely.

But I digress, we were talking about nuclear capabilities.

>>35067525
>Aviation laws require airliners to be within a certain distance of land at all times (~300km iirc)
Haha maybe in the 50s in a twinjet. We ETOPS now, boy.

The US can't win at this stage, but honestly from a purely selfish perspective they can't let there be a risk that the norks fire at them. Surely is the duty of the US government to guarantee the safety of it's own people?

>>35068225

I believe a certain tripfag said that Japan could have a nuclear arsenal in about a year's time. They have all the know-how and materials but they choose not to for obvious reasons.

>>35068225
>>35068188
I am not saying we allow them to create their own nukes, thus violating NPT, but have a similar situation like Turkey were the US bases its own nukes in SK and Japan but retains complete control of them.

>>35065677
I am obviously not OPpenheimer, but I did serve in the US army and was stationed in SK for two tours. I had classified missions/info while over there pertaining to NK.

Back then, we weren't under threat of nukes, so I am sure things have changed. But one of my missions was to take a "cheese wedge" explosive to a particular bridge, this would slow the advancement of the north. After that we were to start taking every civilian vehicle for evacuation use to go further south. All military vehicles were supposed to be used for the combat.

My second tour, my goal was to link with listed VIPs and helicopter to some small islands.

We were also briefed on how long each building was supposed to last, and how long various positions were supposed to hold in case of invasion. A bit nerve racking knowing you are supposed to be able to live for 22 minutes in this place vs 55 minutes in another.

We never trained to deal with nukes because it wasn't a threat back then, we did a lot of artillery/chemical/bio training though.

File: America attacks NK even if we're against it, whose side do we take.jpg (49KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 800x600px

>>35068240
>Surely is the duty of the US government to guarantee the safety of it's own people?

Getting the entire Asia to sign up under the Chinese influence would do wonders for the safety of the average US citizen!
They'd go from having one nuke pointed at them to several hundreds!
Brilliant!

>>35068255

Several countries like that. Saudi Arabia can have them within a year or so too, if Iran ever gets to that point. Best believe the other Arabs with their billions of dollars could get their hands on some too.

Honestly, I think that's the North's real endgame; money. They're already exporting missile technology and rumored to have exported some rudimentary nuclear technology, but what if they had ready-to-go nuclear packages available for sale? Quite a few countries would line up to get their hands on that. Burma is a country where there is cooperation already, and with the Muslim threat that nation faces, nuclear weapons are an increasingly attractive deterrence option.

File: image.png (193KB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 750x1334px

>>35068125
Possibly. At least SK is considering it.

https://mobile.twitter.com/StratSentinel/status/904250177267126273

>>35068123
Thats why you have deterrence.


>>35068055
>It has never been tested against a target using countermeasures either.
It (the whole system) has demonstrated good capacity for target discrimination in a threat cloud.
Not exactly the same, but it shows the system is capable and is improving.

>>35068125
>reintroduce nukes to South Korea and/or Japan to "protect them" but really use them pressure China reign in North Korea?
There is some talk of the former. I don't think it is a good idea. The latter is a terrible idea.


>>35068187
Depends on the missile, but it would be pretty capable against a single or few targets.

>>35068255
Thats a crash program, year at a minimum.

>>35067687

Hasn't school started again?

>>35068387
Yes, but its Labor Day. All good little communist students are at home reflecting upon the struggles of the proletariat.

>>35068381
>Thats a crash program, year at a minimum.

Do you think Japan is going to compelled to stick with nuclear non-proliferation in light of North Korea's strategy?

>>35068404
Going to feel compelled*

>>35068402
>All good little communist students are at home reflecting upon the struggles of the proletariat.
Is that what they call pullin' yer pud these days? To bad their daddies ain't home to get their asses out mowing the yard or somesuch.

>>35068381
>There is some talk of the former. I don't think it is a good idea. The latter is a terrible idea.

How do you feel about the possible payload limits being lifted off of SK missiles?

>>35068348
The Saudis already have some sort of nuclear agreement with Pakistan in place, FYI. They potentially have warheads right now

>>35068404
If North Korea passes their technologies along to certain other nations, I think that the NPT will be a dead letter.

>>35068381
You've probably been asked this already, but anyhow
What do you think of Sum Of All Fears?

>>35068464

They already pass along technology.

>>35068387
Yeah, but there's more traffic on 4chan during the school year. Plus it's not like Opp comes up on google when you search for him

File: Oppenheimer Phone.png (128KB, 394x306px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 394x306px

>>35068381
Couple questions,

First, I was reading this a while back

http://thebulletin.org/north-korea%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cnot-quite%E2%80%9D-icbm-can%E2%80%99t-hit-lower-48-states11012

tl;dr. it says that the ICBMs the norks have been testing didn't include a payload, and thus our estimates of their range are too high. How accurate is that?

Second, I read in the Korea Times that some of the failed nork missiles were deliberately detonated at ~72km, and they suggested that ~72km was ideal for an EMP, and thus indicative of their strategy for using nukes. Are they talking out of their asses?

Third, I'm sure it's been asked before, but what are your thoughts on the Iran deal? It seems you think that generally sanctions aren't effective in the first place, and from what I can tell they've been complying with inspections and turning over material/centrifuges. What'd you think about it?

>>35068381
>It (the whole system) has demonstrated good capacity for target discrimination in a threat cloud.
>Not exactly the same, but it shows the system is capable and is improving.

Absolutely, I agree. And I agree with you on that the best solution is to sit down and have a chat with Kim while the brains in our country further improves our defences.

>>35068654
>filename

Kek, good one

>>35068404
Yes.

>>35068428
Probably not going to be productive.

>>35068484
Good book, terrible godawful movie.

>>35068654
>and thus our estimates of their range are too high. How accurate is that?
Not accurate at all. They got a good bit of pushback on that from the likes of Jeffery Lewis and others. They have been trying to downplay the capabilities of the DPRK in a misguided attempt to prevent any situation to arise that might cause the US and/or the rest of the world to reach the conclusion that it might be best to stop the reduction in nuclear arsenals and that deterrence might be of practical use after all.
They do good research, but often times their conclusions are colored by their politics.

>72km was ideal for an EMP, and thus indicative of their strategy for using nukes. Are they talking out of their asses?
Yes.


>but what are your thoughts on the Iran deal?
Its flawed but working so far.

>It seems you think that generally sanctions aren't effective in the first place,
They can be if enforced properly.

>>35068677
Agreed 100%.
More attention must be paid to missile defence.

>>35068735
>More attention must be paid to missile defence.

To what degree? A sufficiently working missile defense is going to terrify the Russians and Chinese since a "good enough" system that genuinely does its job should be readily expandable and gain the ability to neutralize a counter-force strike, throwing MAD out the window.

>>35068735
>from the likes of Jeffery Lewis and others.
do you not like jeffery lewis?

>>35068757
I'm no expert on the subject, but couldn't we just sign treaties with Russia and China that says we can have very good anti-missile defence systems, but not very many of them?

That way MAD would be preserved against opponents with thousands of nukes (Russia, China) but countries with relatively few weapons (DPRK) would be "harmless" to us.

Just a thought, don't know if possible.

>>35068779
Nvm I'm an idiot, China doesn't have thousands. But they still have more than DPRK.

>>35067467
we /MGS/ now?

Are US missile defenses good enough for the Norks? Will THAAD and Aegis be of any help?

>>35068757
>MAD
>>35068779
>MAD

Mutually assured destruction hasn't been a thing for a long time

>>35068484
>>35068735
One of the book's bigger plot elements was a DDR nuclear program, and also apparently an Argentinian program. Is that related to anything that actually happened IRL whatsoever or invented wholesale for the book?

>>35068764
Great guy. Disagree with him on some things, but hes brilliant.

The point I was making was Lewis is hardly a Hawk on NK. Him calling them out is significant as he would love to find data like that.

>>35068794
I just assume they mean deterrence.

>>35068735
Do you worry when people advocate for an invasion without comprehension of the human loss of life it would entail?

Also what do you make of the whisperings from SK intelligence of a missile test coming up on the 9th?

>>35067823
If you're referring to Operation Opera, those were Iraqi reactors

File: 1.png (184KB, 1230x448px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1230x448px

>>35068820
Uh oh.

>>35068854
Ah yes, I definitely believe this random tweet.

>>35067540
hey opp
what would happen if you heated up a block of plutonium a lot and then hit it with a big hammer

>>35068319
Sounds like some crazy shit, man.

You think they've got a chance?

>>35068888
You would die from cancer years later.
Other than that, probably nothing.

>>35068820
Another question-
What would it take for the US to intercept a NK test? Regarding both justification and tech.

>>35068888

Not Opp, but something like what happened to this guy I would bet:

>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Daghlian

>>35068910
>>35068957
okay, what if you weren't standing next to it but instead have a huge mech step on it or something

>>35068985

What do you mean? Either you get exposed to a burst of lethal radiation or you don't.

>>35069007
I'm wondering if you could get plutonium to go critical by hitting it hard enough

>>35068798
Both those states had some form of nuclear program.

>>35068832
>Do you worry when people advocate for an invasion without comprehension of the human loss of life it would entail?
Only when they are the President.

>Also what do you make of the whisperings from SK intelligence of a missile test coming up on the 9th?
It would make sense.

>>35068888
Same thing that would happen if you heated up a block of Iron and hit it with a hammer.
Just with cancer.
And fire.

>>35068911
They would probably never attempt to intercept a test unless it looked like it was heading for a US ally.

>>35068985
Same thing as if you heated up a block of iron and had a robot step on it.
Just with fire.

>>35069030
You can not.

>>35069030

Well if I understand correctly that's basically how a gun-type device works. Supercriticality that is. Are you talking about an actual nuclear explosion or just a spray of hard radiation?

>>35069061
ok, what if i hit it with a hammer made of plutonium?

>>35069030
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass#Changing_the_point_of_criticality

>>35069061
Do you think strategic balance and deterrence will be upset if the US pursues and acquires a reliable anti-ballistic missile/anti-reentry vehicle technology?

>>35069082
>ok, what if i hit it with a hammer made of plutonium?

If you achieve a critical mass, you will have a criticality accident not unlike the Demon Core. It's not enough that you bring a mass of material together in the first place; it needs to be forced together violently enough that a massive amount of fission takes place in a significant percentage of the material. That's why they used an implosion design driven by high explosives in Fat Man.

I don't like to support war really but I can't see how it's not the better outcome here when the alternative is norks getting to do whatever they like.

>>35068092
This. Mount it on a missile that can be dropped for close in intercepts instead of ground based launch.

File: 1347492061848.jpg (146KB, 579x527px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 579x527px

>>35067525
more because north korea is unstable, has AA, and airlines don't like getting planes shot down

>>35067473
>US will have a difficult time justifying a full nuclear response
I was under the impression that if the Norks nuked something, the US would have a conventional response, possibly with chinese help. How accurate is that?

>>35069111
This. The way they treat their people is monstrous. And eventually the Kims are gonna fall and suddenly those nukes will be in the hands of literally whoever is quick enough to seize them.
I guess nothing bad happened from the fall of the Soviets but somehow i feel like the climate of the world right now is different such that bad things are for sure gonna go down.

>>35069230
Soviet treatment of people wasnt as malicious, vindictive, or as psychotic as imprisoning 3 generations of a family as punishment for thought crimes. They were bad, but DPRK really cranks it up to 11

>>35069061
I've been curious about missile defense. I've been doing some readings that were posted in other threads and they just seem so strange to me. Its important we have them in order to maintain autonomy but the net result is a destabilization of power balance that makes other nuke holders nervous. Are you in favor of aggressive research to guarantee safety and mess with the balance? Would such a thing be possible or even advisable? If we were to get our missile defense to even just 50% guarantee wouldn't the result be a massive backlash against us?

>>35067823
>>35067835


How do you guys not know this one? Israeli sent in a squad of hers and swatted down some facilities decades ago

>>35068985

Are you DU-eating Strelok or another one?

>>35069111
Given North korea's disregard for, ya know, people, I wouldn't be overly surprised if during a war Kim started using his massive chemical/biological weapons on civilians, let alone general mass murder. While I do agree with you, that'd be a pyrrhic victory.

>>35069230
>I guess nothing bad happened from the fall of the Soviets
iirc the US/West made a huge issue of making sure that was the case, but even then we saw a surge in black market nuke-related materials. North Korea might be easier just due to the way lower amount of material we need to watch though.

File: Syrian_Reactor_Before_After.jpg (20KB, 292x219px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 292x219px

>>35067823
>>35069308
That was Iraq,as noted by >>35068853.

The Israelis repeated the operation in Syria in 2007:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard

So far they have not struck Iranian nuclear facilities, except (probably) by cyber attack.

>>35069230
Never mind their own people, if they have nukes they can walk all over south Korea and genocide them (or worse).

A war is absolutely needed.

>>35067643
>20-30 year plan
>realistic
Sorry, but no, fuck no. Not even close.
You're probably looking at several generations for complete reintegration.

I believe as an East German who has also lived in the west, I'm qualified to say that even after all this time there's still noticeable differences and tensions and will be for some time to come.

>>35069424
There's still disconnects and animosities in the United States from the economic structures of the North and South in the civil war, and the mixture of State Rights vs Federal Power (and this argument was fought over the matter of Slavery. Lets not kid ourselves that it was about anything else).

Apparently the DPRK Hwasong-14 missile uses the same engine as the Soviet/Russian SS-18 missile.

Could this have implications on American/Russian relations in the future, particularly if such a delivery system were used outside of "testing" conditions by the DPRK`?

>>35069359
Without deterrence the US can walk over them and have Kim killed like they did with Saddam. Nukes are absolutely necessary (as far as Kim's POV is concerned).

>>35069527
His conventional deterrent alone was enough to stop us from ever doing so, even while he was pursuing nuclear weapons openly.

>>35069544
This. People talk about the deterrent but that's bullshit, they were being left alone anyway. Now they have nukes they're basically inviting themselves to be in conflict.

>>35067406
North Korea isn't a threat.
Here's an actual threat to our nations and sovereignty.
Mass immigration of low iq nonwhites.
That's a real fucking threat and is happening every day. Millions of these bio weapons are being herded into our nations.

Guys, do you think maybe Kim's not at fault? Hear me out. There's an old copypasta about a bunch of kids in a classroom making a picturesque corrupt society as an experiment and watching it snowball outside of everyone's control. In the end even the leader said that if he tried to change things he too would have been thrown under the bus.

Maybe the current situation is because as Kim is stuck being their god / emperor / great general he is slowly cracking under the pressure and privilege and paranoia that comes with the role that NK forced upon him?

>>35069620
We're talking about the Nork's being nuclear and unstable anon. Don't go off topic.

>>35069633
Then that just means we'll have to kill him as well as all of his underlings.

>>35069644
Yeah and they're no threat.

>>35069671
How on fucking earth is an unstable nation with nukes ever not a threat?

>>35069490

It could have nothing to do with the north making it harder to automate production in the south so the north could keep their economical advantage so the south had to rely on slavery by necessity.
Not even from the US, but that war had everything to do with the north meddling and disrupting the economic evolution of the south.

>>35069668
Isn't that trading one kind of unstable for another? Kim's toeing the deep end of the pool but at the same time he's got an impressive education and evidenced by NK's rapid progress in nuclear weapons he's still functioning quite well as a leader. We can't kill all his underlings, and attempting to means it's only a matter of time before the one that's dead set on launching everything takes the hot seat.

File: cashjet968.png (767KB, 968x504px) Image search: [Google]

767KB, 968x504px

WHY DIDNT THEY SPEND THE TRILLION ON BETTER MISSLE DEFENSE WHEN THAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING?!!?!?!?

For those interested in learning more about Nuclear Deterrence, Sandia National Labs has a documentary on it on youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQBLpJFi6f0

>>35069349
Iranian facilities were taken down by a zero day exploit called stuxnet.

>>35069633
If it's any indication, Kim's education was made in the West, so your theory is a credible possibility.

>>35069618
What worked in the nineties wasn't guaranteed to work forever. If the US really wanted NK gone, say to weaken China's position, a bunch of rusty 50's artillery pieces wouldn't stop them.
An ICBM loaded with 500 kiloton warheads might give them pause.

>>35069061
Did we ever make a successor to the ERCS?

>>35068486
>>35068464
KJU probably got the technology from Iran in the first place.

>>35069061
Oppen, would a deterrence option be to station American missiles in Japan and SK or provide warheads to use on Domestically made Missiles? (Hyunmoo, what ever the Japs can churn out in under 6 months)

>>35067588
I read an article a few months back that said that the Kim brother that got assassinated by VX in Malaysia was seen as leaning towards China -- the implication was that the current regime was taking out family/generals who might be inclined to cooperate with China/US/etc against Jong Un

Nukes really are scary shit.

>>35068854
here we go again, absolutely nothing

>>35069030
two chunks of plutonium touching one another wrong can cause a prompt critical reaction. what you want is supercritical reaction(sustained) which is a bit more tricky. but hey if you are in the same room your dead either way. just faster and less painful with supercritical. Actually someone posted the wiki link for that Canadian chemist who died. if I recall he did not even let the two haves touch just got them too close.

>>35070489
Not Opp, but I doubt it. The Minuteman III's we have can go reach North Korea easily so they're already well within strike capability for us.

File: nuclear test.jpg (526KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

526KB, 1500x1000px

>>35068381
>Deterrence

I've had this thought a lot lately, and I haven't read the whole thread yet, so pardon me if it was answered. What's your opinion of the state of deterrence at this point? I feel like it's seriously impacted by all this. Not only has a rogue state developed nuclear weapons and away to deliver them to the continental US, allegedly, they could start selling them, or I feel they're more likely to have some sort of security breach relative to the equipment. On top of that, we now have some crazed, delusional idiot who is basically playing "I'm not touching you" with nukes, and you say our primary path forward is, in some sense, appeasement rather than a solid solution to that.

What happens to the concept of deterrence when it's entirely likely some random asshole might actually use the damn things for stupid reasons, or even solid reasons (Assuming a preemptive strike or the like)? I feel like this is different than Cold War saber rattling from an assumption that they might do it, I feel like this is pushing it to the limit and damaging the concept because they actually might.

What happens if it actually happens? Does the whole world just take a mulligan on MAD because he was crazy?

Also, side note; do we have a guess at their supply capability relative to the nukes? They at least have enough to test them and allegedly still be launch capable, but do we have an idea how many they have?

Just leave NK alone and they'll integrate with the rest of the world eventually. Just look at where they were twenty years ago. In twenty more years all of the old brass will be dead, and it's ridiculous to think that the new generation of NK leaders will carry over everything the exact same way.

>>35071231
>What happens if it actually happens?
Limited nuclear strikes would become part and parcel of living in the big city. Life would go on.

>>35071286
London could do with a good nuking.

File: Capture.png (37KB, 1428x169px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 1428x169px

>>35071166
Both died of total organ/bodily failure I think. Pretty terrifying.

>>35071231
>MAD
No use of nuclear weapons would lead instantly to mutually assured destruction. There would be a gradual escalation of use, with massive condemnation internationally and attempts to deescalate the conflict, followed by a large and mutual counter-force strike (attacking military targets). Counter-value strikes (attacking cities/civilian targets) have been largely absent from nuclear strategy for decades now, and even in the event of an all-out strike by Russia, the US would still retain (iirc) 50%+ of its population and most of its industrial/agricultural capacity. With all this in mind, MAD isn't really taken into consideration that much anymore, or at least not to the degree it was during the 60's and by the public.

Oh, and on North Korea specifically, they have less than two dozen small nukes, hardly enough to "destroy" the US.

>>35069620
>>>/pol/

>>35069620
This is a thread about nuclear threats.
Go spout your shit on /pol/, retard.

>>35071320
>London
you forgot Israel, new york and California

>>35070368
You could say ALCS is the closest thing to a successor.

>>35070489
Nope. It would exacerbate the situation.
It would play into Un's fears of a US first strike.

>>35071231
>What's your opinion of the state of deterrence at this point?
Seems to be working.


>they could start selling them,
Extremely unlikely.

>or I feel they're more likely to have some sort of security breach relative to the equipment.
More concerning than then selling them.

>On top of that, we now have some crazed, delusional idiot
It is a mistake to view him as irrational. Everything he has done seems very calculated and thought out.

>and you say our primary path forward is, in some sense, appeasement rather than a solid solution to that.
Any other solution runs substantial risk of massive loss of life as well as consequences that go beyond that.

>What happens to the concept of deterrence when it's entirely likely some random asshole might actually use the damn things for stupid reasons, or even solid reasons (Assuming a preemptive strike or the like)?
Deterrence presumes rational actors. I think that, for the most part Un is a rational actor.

>I feel like this is different than Cold War saber rattling from an assumption that they might do it,
It is not that different.

>I feel like this is pushing it to the limit and damaging the concept because they actually might.
Only if you think he is irrational.

>What happens if it actually happens?
Limited nuclear war.

>Does the whole world just take a mulligan on MAD because he was crazy?
Probably not.

>Also, side note; do we have a guess at their supply capability relative to the nukes? They at least have enough to test them and allegedly still be launch capable, but do we have an idea how many they have?
Not really. More than two, less than 100.

>>35065677
>tripfag
dead, hopefully

File: totalitarianism and the second amendment in the style of the lord of the flies.png (485KB, 1322x2891px) Image search: [Google]

485KB, 1322x2891px

>>35069633
I find it unlikely or worthless. He's already buying his own hype now, so it doesn't matter.

This is a great read, though.

>>35067725
>Time to make a deal. There is no military solution.

Is there no military solution because the United States taking action would cause tens of thousands of South Korean casualties and create a refugee crisis, because it would result in a situation where the United States is involved in another decades-long occupation where soldiers are getting killed left and right by Chinese-backed guerillas, because there is no public support for a war with North Korea, because the international community would never accept taking preemptive military action even to stop a pariah state trying to go nuclear, because the North Koreans are already advanced enough to effectively deploy nuclear weapons against attacking enemies (like, say, the 7th Fleet), or for some other reason than one of the above?

I ask because it seems like the United States is at a crossroads here, where this is likely the last chance we have to be able to deal with North Korea by military means. If their nuclear program reaches completion and they have a stockpile that can credibly deter the United States government, it all but removes one of America's strongest bargaining chips--its overwhelming conventional military might--as an option for dealing with the situation.

>>35071658
Nice.

>>35071461
anti immigration is not racist

cant we just surgically remove KJU?

File: images.jpg (7KB, 219x230px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 219x230px

the korea bomb is 10 times more powerful than that of hiroshima and nagasaki

File: 1200px-Flag_of_South_Vietnam.svg.png (938B, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

938B, 1200x800px

>>35071757
>taking action would cause tens of thousands of South Korean casualties and create a refugee crisis
Not like thats stopped us before

>>35071757
>Is there no military solution because the United States taking action would cause tens of thousands of South Korean casualties
And Japanese casualties. And possibly many Americans

>and create a refugee crisis, because it would result in a situation where the United States is involved in another decades-long occupation where soldiers are getting killed left and right by Chinese-backed guerillas, because there is no public support for a war with North Korea, because the international community would never accept taking preemptive military action even to stop a pariah state trying to go nuclear, because the North Koreans are already advanced enough to effectively deploy nuclear weapons against attacking enemies (like, say, the 7th Fleet)
Probably not against a naval force, but they could probably hit target in the US, and certainly Guam, Japan.

>or for some other reason than one of the above?
No that about it.

>I ask because it seems like the United States is at a crossroads here, where this is likely the last chance we have to be able to deal with North Korea by military means.
the US came to those crossroads many years ago, they just didn't realize it then.

>If their nuclear program reaches completion and they have a stockpile that can credibly deter the United States government, it all but removes one of America's strongest bargaining chips--its overwhelming conventional military might--as an option for dealing with the situation.
That day has already arrived.

>>35071840
Is a nuclear first strike the only viable and completely politically unacceptable solution to protect South Korea, Japan, and the United States from North Korean retaliation? Is North Korea's threat credible enough to make a first strike unlikely to prevent counter-force action?

>>35071814
No. North Korea is the most sealed off place our intelligence agencies have ever dealt with. The totalitarian government keeps tabs on everyone who comes and goes, and the people live in a 1984 style setup where if they fail to report anything suspicious they will be held equally responsible (read: sent to concentration camps).
Most human intelligence out of NK is based on analysis of their press.

>>35071840
Say, one question, how far can a thermo nuke's explosive yeild reach?

>>35071791
Of course not, but derailing an interesting and concerning topic on a board intrinsically linked with said topic to talk about "muh imigrayshun xd," belongs in /pol/, same for the people who discuss it, period.

>>35071926
Depends on how many stages you stick onto it.
Edward Teller designed a 10 gigaton bomb back in the day (10k megatons) that theoretically didn't need a delivery method- just detonate somewhere on Earth and your enemies will die. And most everyone else.

>>35071880
If I was Kim, I'd have a suicide pilot on standby to fly one of their bi-planes straight into Seoul with a Kamikaze nuke on board.

>>35071966
Uh, wrong (You) buddy

File: yNIHV8A[1].jpg (24KB, 600x452px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 600x452px

>>35071966
>10 gigaton
>didn't need a delivery method- just detonate somewhere on Earth and your enemies will die.

>>35071840
In what situations do you think the costs that you outlined would be considered acceptable by the people of the United States, the government of the United States, and the international community? Is the only one "North Korea uses one of its nuclear weapons in a first strike against America or an American ally?"

Also, regarding the Chinese response to a situation that ends up going hot--what's your take on the matter? On the one hand, North Korea has major strategic importance to the military standing of the PRC and they would never accept an outcome where the country gets occupied by the United States or gets a puppet government that is controlled by the United States. The people of China are also incredibly jingoistic and resent America's status as the most powerful nation in the world. On the other hand, the people of China look down on North Korea as backwards and the Korean people in general as being racially inferior subhumans. The Chinese people will of course do whatever their government tells them to do, but there will be great resentment if the PRC government forces them into a losing war on the behalf of a people they despise. Additionally, the Chinese military is not currently in a state where it could credibly defeat the United States in a conventional conflict and the PRC itself risks going the way of the Soviet Union if it ends up on the losing side of a major war. All of these considerations have led me to believe that a military response against North Korea by the United States will result in the Chinese copying what Russia did in Ukraine, in that they will just train insurgents rather than getting directly involved. Do you think this is an accurate assessment, or do you think there is a condition beyond "America performs a first strike against China" that would see them go to war openly with the United States?

>>35071840
>It would play into Un's fears of a US first strike.

No, we will basically be giving them each their own Nuclear deterrent except they build the delivery system and we supply the Reentry vehicles, my thinking is that North Korea operates on the assumption that the US is too scared or will somehow hesitate to use nuclear force, by giving South Korea and Japan their own deterrent maybe North Korea would think twice about threatening SK and Japan with annihilation, i would make a treaty with them both stating that the Missile must not be MIRV'd or MARV'd, only have only the necessary range to reach North Korea and use supplied reentry vehicles and warheads we will give them, that way we can withdraw these warheads anytime for what ever reason.

Also fuck the UN

>>35067687
pls go and stay go.

File: 1420423157853-2.jpg (8KB, 255x191px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 255x191px

>>35071966
Now that is some shit.

>>35068043
>It's not a buffer zone for China,
do you have a sauce for that new pasta or are you just an idiot?

>>35069359
>genocide
The inevitable Nork shelling of Seoul in the event of war will be mathematically equivalent to a genocide. Why not just take your chances with the potentiality of genocide vs. the inevitability?

>>35071524
YOU FORGOT SAN FRANCISCO AND SACRAMENTO!!!!!

File: 20170815_155152.jpg (1MB, 2576x1932px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2576x1932px

>>35071370
>tungsten carbide brick
DO FUCKING WANT!

>>35072731
YEAH?
WELL I'M FROM BUENOS ARES
AND I SAY KILL EM ALL

>>35072998
I'll settle for every major coastal city on the Left Coast. Minus the few people I know who live there.

>>35072767
>Mauser brand calipers....
pure lust.

>>35068255
>Japan
>take a year to assemble functional nukes
You're underestimating them. They could have nuclear warheads in a month.

>>35073503
They could probably have a gun type bomb in a month. It'd be longer for anything larger or more efficient.

>>35068832
>Do you worry when people advocate for an invasion without comprehension of the human loss of life it would entail?

Do you worry when people advocate for appeasing/ignoring NK, hoping it will just go away long enough for the next person to have to deal with it?

>>35071880
>Is a nuclear first strike the only viable and completely politically unacceptable solution to protect South Korea, Japan, and the United States from North Korean retaliation?
No.

>Is North Korea's threat credible enough to make a first strike unlikely to prevent counter-force action?
Probably not, but its a risk.

>>35071919
Depends on the number of stages.


>>35072097
>In what situations do you think the costs that you outlined would be considered acceptable by the people of the United States, the government of the United States, and the international community? Is the only one "North Korea uses one of its nuclear weapons in a first strike against America or an American ally?"
There are several possibilities and each one would have to be examined on its own merits and the context in which it is occurring.
A provocative action in one situation might be ignored while in another situation it might trigger a response.

>Also, regarding the Chinese response to a situation that ends up going hot--what's your take on the matter?
They will sit it out.

>>35072204
This would open up a pandora's box of terrible consequences.

>>35073503
No they couldn't.

>>35073525
>appeasing

Negotiating. The US would not likely be in the same position it is in now if it had not reneged on different parts of agreements.

What do we even have to negotiate any more? Like what more can we cut them off from? I heard Trump wants to stop doing business with any country that does business with NK, but first off - what countries are those, besides obviously China, and is this even feasible?

Everyone ITT who has not read Nuclear North Korea by Victor Cha and David Kang, which is an excellent overview although somewhat dated, should do so immediately

>>35073747
>What do we even have to negotiate any more? Like what more can we cut them off from? I heard Trump wants to stop doing business with any country that does business with NK, but first off - what countries are those, besides obviously China, and is this even feasible?

We have sticks. When we apply those sticks, offering to take away the stick might start to seem like a reward.

>>35073840
>sanctions
>productive
>ever

I cannot see any scenario where the DPRK negotiates to give up their nuclear deterrence capabilities. This only ends one way, the question is how bad do you want it to be. The longer that the norks have to grow their nuclear arsenal the worse it will be

>>35073854
>This only ends one way, the question is how bad do you want it to be. The longer that the norks have to grow their nuclear arsenal the worse it will be

Deterrence worked for the USSR. It will work with the DPRK.

>>35073871
>Deterrence worked for the USSR. It will work with the DPRK.

Is deterrence truly acceptable?

>>35073698
>This would open up a pandora's box of terrible consequences.

Explain

>>35073871
To add on to what Opp is saying, deterrence has worked for 60 years.

>>35073886
Yes, in the absence of a will on both sides for productive negotiations it is the next best option

>>35073698
Hey Op can you answer >>35069260

>>35073840

What can we really threaten them with though (besides war) What sticks can we really apply? They've turned out to be more self-reliant than we thought, I mean they've demonstrated these recent/more frequent launches and detonations under their heaviest sanctions yet. Short of convincing China to literally ignore them, which I don't see happening, what can the rest of the world do to pressure them? What is it they need that we can prevent them from getting that would stop their behavior?

I feel like Kimchi has done too much in too short of a time frame to back down, if his people really are how we've been told they are he couldn't possibly risk losing any perceived might by giving in to any of our demands. That and I'm sure Trump's twittering and spontaneous rhetoric in the name of his own ego are only making things worse for us by giving Kimchi even more of a reason (from his people's perspective) to act as tough and all-mighty as ever, which hurts this whole situation.

>>35073899
It has all the political risk of straight giving nukes to states with no real control over what they might panic over.

>>35073871
>Deterrence worked for the USSR
Because the Soviets knew what would happen if either side got itchy and pressed the button. They actually cared about what would happen to their own people. Kim and his regime are very questionable in this regard. Who knows, after nearly seventy years maybe NK leaders are actually drinking the same kool-aid that they've been forcing on their citizens. Maybe they really believe Americans are so poor and destitute that they drink coffee made from snow and live in tents

>>35073979
We station nukes in Romania and a few other countries, what's the difference?

>>35074002
We hold the button.
>what if they rush the facility
They won't be able to arm and fire it so the point is moot, we still hold the button.

>>35073980
http://www.38north.org/2017/07/hferon071817/

He really isn't. Stop reading fake news.

>>35073980

Can't wait for bird tuesday

>>35073980
Definitely not the case, they know nukes increases the chances they exist as a state, they also know giving them up means they will definitely lose all ability to do so.

They are rational actors, the logic is simple, the means is clear but the end goal is potentially muddled. Do they want reunification? If so they might be able to get it if they wait long enough. Do they want to be left alone for the very long foreseeable future? This definitely allows for that.

>>35073886
>Is deterrence truly acceptable?
Unless you want to fight a ruinous war that would run a significant risk of escalating into a nuclear one, yes.

>>35073899
Doing so would destroy the NPT, and provide a precedent for nuclear armed nations to transfer mature nuclear weapons technology to client states and allies.
Think about what that means for a few minutes.

>>35069260
Im in favor of a missile defense system that is fully capable of stopping a limited number of missiles.
Strategic stability is largely preserved and the US is protected against an accidental launch or one by a nascent nuclear power.

>>35073980
>Because the Soviets knew what would happen if either side got itchy and pressed the button.
So do the North Koreans.

>They actually cared about what would happen to their own people. Kim and his regime are very questionable in this regard.
They can be trusted to do whats in the best interest of the regime.
The threat isn't that Un is nuts and will launch nuclear weapons because he is a comic book villain, the risk is that the US and DPRK will enter into a crisis, and thought a series of missteps and errors, exchange nuclear weapons.

Believing Un is crazy or incompetent is a mistake.

>>35074062

I'm almost afraid to ask this for the sake of derailing the thread, so my apologies in advance if I do (to be fair it's been going for awhile). How much of a risk do you think Trump's ego/attitude/personality contribute to a possible bad scenario? Could IRL shitposting trigger actual conflict?

>>35074062
Fight a ruinous war compared to what? Allowing a major trading partner to go dark as they reuinify? Allowing the entirety of Asia be controlled by Un and maybe the Chinese?

Of all the options sitting by and letting the threat develop is by far the worst, a couple nukes would be preferable to the future that would allow.

>>35073967

I get the impression that the regime is finding it harder and harder to make money, which is likely to stir unrest and destabilize it, but that might not be a good thing itself. Desperate men are more likely to do desperate things.

>>35074139
It seems some kind of market force no one is quite sure of is driving at least some growth that can't be all bluster.

>>35074062
>Unless you want to fight a ruinous war that would run a significant risk of escalating into a nuclear one, yes.

What's the red line for a nuclear strike? Picking up radiation from a missile that's on the launch pad or already airborne? How can we be sure that we're not going to go straight to "why can't we use" nuclear weapons?

>>35067725
Lets say that China comes to the table and approves of a UN led military solution to the NK problem, would that change the equation of no solution to something different?

>>35071966
that's so fucking /k/

>>35074162
China isn't nearly as in control as they once were. Even if they were to approve it the deference is enough that it would take something monumentally agressive for anyone to take action

>>35074131
You are makjng the assumption that war is inevitable.

>>35074161
All of that depends on the context of the crisis.

>>35074183
how many nukes do they have?

>>35067588
My understanding is that Kim currently has at least 2-3 kids based of the fact that Kim's wife has disappeared and reappeared several times for months at a time. This considers only his current wife (only as far as we know) but any children he has can't be more than 15. If Kim truely gain 80 pounds since becoming leader coupled with his apparent health otherwise suggests that said kids are gonna get murdered as soon as Kim dies. Kim does not seem to be commanding the same level of respect as his father and grandfather.

If Kim dies NK goes failed state mode in under 24 hours with warlords every where.

>>35074183
War IS inevitable at this point, what they break off and declare themselves UnLand and give up on reunification? Magically China doesn't use this massive loss of face to not push harder for thier String of Pearls? What do you think would be the best outcome to all this, status quo? Why? What reason would Un, who would hold all the cards ever bother with such an arrangement when he could have it all?

>>35074219
Shoo shoo, ideological hawk. Stop sabotaging foreign policy.

File: 1488609423563.jpg (76KB, 450x592px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 450x592px

>>35074219
>war is inevitable
>our enemy is an irrational warmonger
>we must nuke him before he nukes us

wow its like we made a time machine or something

>>35074247
if you can't handle a few thousand deaths ur a pussy dude

>>35074230
I opposed and still oppose having anything to do with playing in the sand but this is untenable, at most it pushes the problem off for a decade or so, in which case multiple heirs would have been groomed, nuclear weapons become more advanced and the entity of the Korean peninsula becomes reunited under communism and everything bad that might happen still happens in slow motion and this time worse.

>>35074247
Give me your best case scenario.

>>35074268
>if you can't handle a few thousand deaths ur a pussy dude

Probably upwards of 10 million+, honestly.

>>35074323
>believing warisboring tier retard charts
nah ur a cunt :^)

>>35074219
>What reason would Un, who would hold all the cards ever bother with such an arrangement when he could have it all?


He wouldnt have all the cards.
Thats deterrence. Just as the US is constrained so is the DPRK.

The same deterrence that kept the Soviets in check can work with the DPRK. The US will make clear that pushing tol far will result in escalations just as DPRK can.

Like it or not, the US has failed in this policy goal, and the DPRK has won. They have their nuclear weapons, and the US is powerless to change this for any realistic cost.
It is too late to go back and fight this. Accept that the US was out manuvered, and look ahead to the new reality amd how we deter them going forward.

>>35074349
The costs are manageable at this point, in the future it will not be. But then again I am not making policy. Geniuses like you were and are, I'm sure you'll be right this time around.

File: 1477704350124.jpg (141KB, 450x651px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 450x651px

>>35074304
>deterrence can't work
>nuke possessors will just invade wantonly
>there will never be any social change
>there will never be any economic change
>there will never be any regional relations change

Boy am I glad we nuked the fuck out of the USSR, seeing as how that is clearly the only way to handle threatening nations and there are zero other viable alternatives

>>35074304
Again. You are making lots of assumptions. Just as nuclear weapons will deter the US from attacking the DPRK, US nuclear weapons will deter the DPRK from attacking the south.

>Give me your best case scenario.
US and DPRK enter into deterrent stability.

>>35074338
The most sensible assumption (to me) is that any military strike will unavoidably spiral into a nuclear exchange, so you might as well beat them to the punch.

>>35074349
Deterrence is irrelevant when it's ineffectual versus such a small nation that knows we can't waste raid sizes on something so small that would end up blowing back. Un isn't a tardo he knows this. he's just going to push harder. He's probably got at least a dozen or a dozen and a bakers of warheads. His ability to deploy by sub is impossible his subs would be killed dead almost immediately likely already being tracked currently by sosus and a few attack subs.

His ability to attack by missile could be greatly degraded not only by missile defense but destruction by direct attack.

All that would be left is his artillery and groudforces which frankly have been wildly over exaggerated by sophists such as yourself

>>35074375
>The costs are manageable at this point,
I would not call the possibility of a nuclear attack on an American city, and perhaps 100,000 dead as 'manageable' when we could instead deter them as we did the USSR.

>>35071832
Japs BTFO

>>35074398
The same way sanctions and negotiating was supposed to stop this to begin with? The same way North Koreans were a couple years away from boosted weapons and mounting them on missiles? On this thin slice of capabilty you were dead wrong outside of some off the cuff disclaimers, why would you be right about anything else?

You say reunification is a possibility, it is an inevitability following your model. Is that something that the US can weather foreign policy wise? Do you think a dynastic state is even capable of a stable deterrence scenario? After all this you still wind up with fingers on the button, just maybe after you are retired.

>>35074459
I understand the need to Solve the Problem, but this isn't necessarily a solveable problem. Politics itself is loaded with situations for which there are no real "solutions" that pass the acid test of public opinion.

>>35074497
it is a solvable problem. blood must be spilled. kicking the can down the road never ever works.

>>35074509
>it is a solvable problem. blood must be spilled. kicking the can down the road never ever works.

The Cold War strategy of deterrence is a failure?

>>35074459
>The same way sanctions and negotiating

The negotiations that hawks like you sabotaged by reneging on while calling for intervention for the last 20 years. Give me a break.

>>35074509
It'll work till the checks are cashed and the people who kicked it are dead or living fat off pensions. We call that a success in democracies.

>>35074514
That's deterrence towards Russia, and later China.

So what's stopping us from developing a payload that is capable of intercepting any nuclear payload by speeding to it then exploding into a massive fireball and detonating said nuclear payload mid-flight?

>>35074398
>US nuclear weapons will deter the DPRK from attacking the south.

Unless the US public decides risking US cities isn't worth defending the South for, at which point the nuclear umbrella falls apart.

Returning to the pre1990s nuclear sharing agreement would alleviate this somewhat but I won't be shocked if South Korea seriously considers its own nuclear weapons program now.

>>35074525
oppen believes in gay shit like percentages. he also regularly ignores nork delivery capabilities and the possibility of premonition. tbqh he's gutless

>>35074546
He's white collar, if you were in the same spot you'd do the same. No one wants blood on thier hands, especially if that's not what they are paid to do.

>>35074525
>So what's stopping us from developing a payload that is capable of intercepting any nuclear payload by speeding to it then exploding into a massive fireball and detonating said nuclear payload mid-flight?

Congress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile)

>>35074418
>Deterrence is irrelevant when it's ineffectual versus such a small nation that knows we can't waste raid sizes on something so small that would end up blowing back.
Im not sure what this sentence means.

You are greatly overestimating the US capabilities and greatly underestimating the DPRK.

>>35074459
Your way: 100K dead. Possible destruction of an American city.

People who study this for a living: probable stability, posible war.

Your entire way of thinking is based on the premise that the DPRK can not be deterred, but the US can.
Thats just silly.

And yes. Lots of people were wrong about when they would reach different milestones. Thats part of the deal. No one is correct all the time.

You remind me of a story Tom Nichols likes to tell:

A visiting physics professor gives a lecture on a new concept. After, an undergrad grills him on several aspects of his talk.
The Professor answers his questions. At the end, the student throws his hands up and says "Well, your guess is as good as mine."
The professor responds "No, my guess is much better than yours."

>>35067467
>Iran
Thanks Obama!

>>35074571
>You are greatly overestimating the US capabilities and greatly underestimating the DPRK.
I can see why you might have some difficulties. Perhaps getting a touch to old. The reality is the US can't affort to get into a nuclear pissing contest with the DPRk like it can with China or Russia because of the value. If we nuke either of those we know we are both likely back to square uno. nuking the DPRK puts us in a retarded no win lose everything scenario where we cede power to 2nd and 3rd place. Un isn't a tardo he knows this he will continue to press until he get reunification.

>>35074531
The US didnt decide that New York was not worth Berlin.

>>35067384
How would the American population react to a Nuclear weapon going off on its homeland, Not even hitting a city just going off in lets say northern california or a few miles off the coast of Los Angeles, say catalina island.

>>35074606
You sound like a grossly uninformed sociopath with unrealistic expectations.

>>35074609
Isolationist/non-interventionists are gaining traction and may gain more traction. South Korea could very seriously believe this trend will continue.

Op I would like your perspective on this one. I preface this with the admission I am not the cleverest of men and am certainly not versed in all aspects of politics, war and diplomacy. In short, I am hoping I don't sound like a fool here. I just know my lane and what I've seen and heard.

I've been in Area I Korea before and kept my eyes open in the TOCs during a few of our exercises. I'd like to imagine I have a pretty good idea of what the outcome of any probably escalation of conflict would be. And if I know it, then likely do the NKs because I imagine half the owners of every ville there are on some NK spymaster's payroll. They probably have an excellent idea of our true capabilities at any given time.

With all this talk of deterrence, let's say NK shares my abysmal opinion of 8TH Army and ROK forces and behaves under the assumption that they could, with some degree of confident, reach Seoul and hold it for some period of time. Well they have weaponized nuclear devices at the very least; which they can make road-mobile and potentially threaten to hold hostage the city now. And if they don't already, one day they will develop the credible capability to strike at, albeit not likely to succeed (but at least the threat has some credibility) the homeland. It seems to me that the NK leadership holds some very potent cards to play in the future and if the intent is to forcefully reunify the Pen, an outcome which highly favors their preferences is not completely unrealistic should the right circumstances arise. I often wonder how this factors into their behavior; if they are aiming for this outcome all along or they are truly pursuing deterrence policy.

>>35074628
u sound pretty flustered my kid. welcome to foreign policy

>>35074606
>The reality is the US can't affort to get into a nuclear pissing contest with the DPRk like it can with China or Russia because of the value.
What?

>If we nuke either of those we know we are both likely back to square uno.
This is not exactly true, but okay.

>nuking the DPRK puts us in a retarded no win lose everything scenario where we cede power to 2nd and 3rd place. Un isn't a tardo he knows this he will continue to press until he get reunification.

So let me get this straight.

You think that Un is all about regime preservation, except when hes not, and that while the US can be deterred because of the risk of falling from 1st to 2nd or 3rd place, the DPRK can not be deterred from falling from 200th place to non-existence?

>>35074643
>foreign policy
You have no idea what you are talking about.
At all.
Sorry.

>>35074643
Whatever you say, Caligula.

>>35074628
It's common among a certain strain of American hawks

>>35074606
Oh, not only are you a blood thirsty warhawk, but you're also an incoherent buffoon who has no idea what the fuck you are even saying.

>>35074643
You are more clueless than the Trump on this.

Congratulations

>>35074634
>It seems to me that the NK leadership holds some very potent cards to play in the future and if the intent is to forcefully reunify the Pen, an outcome which highly favors their preferences is not completely unrealistic should the right circumstances arise. I often wonder how this factors into their behavior; if they are aiming for this outcome all along or they are truly pursuing deterrence policy.

They do want to obtain a deterrent capability to prevent US regime change. And they also want to create more room to maneuver, diplomatically speaking, in regards to the south.
This is an aspect of whats called the Stability/Instability Paradox. This is the idea that nuclear armed nations will increase in strategic stability, while lower intensity conflicts will increase. Like the US and USSR. While stable on a strategic level, both sides maneuvered for diplomatic advantage and fought each others proxies and engaged in low level conflicts.

The same will likely happen here. The US/ROK and the DPRK will settle into strategic stability while attempting to engage via proxy.

Part of the reason the US needs to sit down with the DPRK now is to establish what this new order will look like. Both sides need to have a clear understanding of what will be tolerable on the peninsula and what will not be.

>>35074654
The irony here is that I am considered a Brad Roberts style hawk by most.

>>35074648
>>35074653
>>35074660
>>35074662
You have been talking to a completely different person for the past few posts my dude. You seem to be projecting quite a bit of anguish onto me for some reason can't imagine what that other guy did to upset you so much. reality is you have based you opinion on a false reality of military strategy that clearly is quite beyond you. I can understand why your upset but throwing and smashing your toys like an autist is unnecessary ok :^)

Your willingness to intentionally misrepresent positions however is interesting and quite telling quite the little sophist aren't we.

Lets just play with the hypotheticals. lets say Un decides he really feels like that he wants to push the issue of ownership of Ganghwa. He can do so with little issue in the state of deterrence you want him in.

This is literally the basis of Kissinger's 1957 book. The US's only response to such a move would be all nuclear or nothing. Which would be completely out of proportion to the need prescribed in such an issue.

So while you may think you have a solution here. you don't. Your just basing it on a flawed understanding of history. The US would be trying it's own hands behind it's back with your solution

>>35074571
You mean probable immediate stability. 100k dead or a nuclear armed feudal communist Korea free to do as it pleases. The only way you can not think this if you think the US is above history and precedent.

A professor of physics has an interest in making sure his guesses stand up to time and therefore his guesses are worth more than policy advisors who have been consistently wrong for decades.

>>35074721
>being this butthurt

>>35074721
> I was just pretending to be retarded

Yeah that sounds about what everyone expected

>>35074721
I think you're talking to three Anons + Oppenheimer, there. Your responses seem to be a mixture of incoherent and egotistical, with full disregard for the well being of non-Americans.

>>35074733
>>35074759
>no refutation.
to be expected from brainlets :^)

>>35074721
>You have been talking to a completely different person for the past few posts my dude.
Sorry. You both have a tendency to say silly things. I get confused.


>He can do so with little issue in the state of deterrence you want him in.
This is incorrect.

>This is literally the basis of Kissinger's 1957 book.
Ah. Well there's your problem. You want to read "The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy" by Freedman.

>>35074730
>free to do as it pleases.
This is incorrect.
Again with the silly idea that the US can always be deterred, but the DPRK is immune to it.

>history and precedent.
Like every existing relationship between nuclear powers?


>policy advisors who have been consistently wrong for decades.
Lets see your math.

would a nuke on American soil be more disruptive than the decay (and possibly violence) that our culture is spiraling into?

>>35074767
>disregard for the well being of non-Americans.
sorry I don't study sociology.

>>35074768
>HURP DERP OUTLANDISH RETARDATION
Wow what an idiot.
>HURRR NO REFUTATION

Why would anyone want to refute you being an idiot?

>>35074773
>Again with the silly idea that the US can always be deterred, but the DPRK is immune to it.

Different Anon (one who has been in your defense for a lot of these things), but if we assume North Korea operates on the approach of Nuclear De-Escalation and threatens to use nuclear weapons in the face of conventional response, what happens if we call his bluff?

>>35074781
this, Im curious my question is basically the same

>>35074793
>>35074773
>This is incorrect.
>Ah. Well there's your problem. You want to read "The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy" by Freedman.

still looking for a non fallacy riddled refutation kiddster

>>35074648
As NK have not signed the treaty about WMD's in space would that he a possible option for them and what would be the benefits for positioning nukes in orbit.

Also now Un completed his goal of being largely uncontestable in conventional warfare what will be his next project. ABM systems? A large intelligence network (assuming NK has spied in US allies nations).
would the US create a NATO analogue in the Pacific to counter NK or are the current formal alliances enough? Would said NATO analogue participants he loaned nukes?

>>35074795
>what happens if we call his bluff?
Depends on the crisis. Both sides under deterrence are crisis adverse.

Thats the thing about deterrence in general. It reduces the probability that two nuclear armed nations will engage in direct conventional conflict. At the same time, it increases unconventional conflict (proxy conflicts are an example).
If the US has done its job of establishing deterrence, then the DPRK become less likely to engage in direct conflict expressly because it is in their best interest to avoid escalatory crises.

>>35074807
>in space would that he a possible option for them and what would be the benefits for positioning nukes in orbit.
I do not know if they have the capability to get their warhead into orbit. I don't know if thats something they would pursue, given their limited resources.

>>35074807
>next project
I have no idea. Lets get though this one first. ABM might be a good guess.

>NATO analogue in the Pacific
Existing agreements are probably sufficient.

>Would said NATO analogue participants he loaned nukes?
Probably not.

>>35074767
Meh, I'm in the camp of striking but from the point of keeping th US as safe as possible at the detriment of severing all contacts doing nothing is the best bet. At the end of the day I think pushing through for honestly manageable of military casualites on the US side and equally manageable damage to the South Koreans is worth solving a problem instead of avoiding it.

>>35074773
How is it silly? The North Koreans have nukes and they got it without the US raising a hand, tightening it's purse strings maybe but nothing really significant.

In what world of your own construction would they possibly have to fear by simply marching into South Korea? US retribution? Your policies already proved the US will not attack.

Seven years from now, the economy of South Korea severely depressed and the US still smarting from the complete loss and with a new president (provided this doesn't manage to make Trump a one termer) they begin to march across the DMZ, what would the US do?

What in your mind would a deference the North Koreans KNOW the US will not use do to prevent this? If this happens do you launch nukes?

>>35074719
>The irony here is that I am considered a Brad Roberts style hawk by most.

There's a difference between being an ideologue hawk, and a realist hawk. Victor Cha makes a nice distinction between the two camps with regards to North Korea.

>>35074887
>Meh, I'm in the camp of striking but from the point of keeping the US as safe as possible

If you genuinely believed this, you wouldn't consider striking the best option