Theoretically if NK nuked Tokyo, the USA WILL NOT respond with

>>35130016

Get a load of this retard, everyone

File: r960-df29e6709f3f0cca8140c79a899bcac2.jpg (72KB, 960x698px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 960x698px

>>35130016
No, instead we'll make NK hurt the good ol' fashion way.

Saturation bombing and shit-ton of precision missiles.

Btw, if NK attacks anyone, China will not step in for their defense. They clearly stated that.

>>35130016
>NK could retaliate by nuking US soil
Kim is that you?

What does this have to do with weapons?

I think it should be moved to /int/

no

its because China

>>35130016
>If they nuked NK, then the NK could retaliate by nuking a bunch of Democrats, gang members, and illegals
4D CHESS

>>35130016
Nice try, Fat One.

>>35130016
NK has zero percent chance of hitting mainland US. Ever.
Fucky out of here.

>>35130189
Are we still larping that the fat old man with senior dementia is some kind of genius?

>>35130016
No.

>>35130230
It's not like President Pat Buchanan or President Steve Bannon or President Bronze Age Pervert could realistically be doing any better.

I know this a bait thread but you are correct in that the US would probably not retaliate with nuclear force. Conventional means would be sufficient in crippling much of NK's capabilities as NK literally cannot stop US military threats through direct interference.
This plays into the US's hands as NK is shown as the BBEG for using nukes while the Americans show restraint but still succeed in a counter-force/value operation as retaliation for a strike against an allied nation.

None of this matters however because as soon as he fires first the Chinese will have so many screaming squints crammed up his ass it'll make Clint Eastwood look like a character from Utena. The Chinese would never give the US time to get properly involved in the NK.

>>35130218
If NK has zero percent chance of hitting mainland U.S. soil, why didn't U.S. shoot down the missile flying over Japan?

>>35130389
This, China would make fatty Jong Un eat his own lard ass before the US could get a bigger foothold in Korea.

>>35130016
No.

If DPRK nukes Tokyo and we do NOTHING, then that discredits the entire point of NATO and many of our other alliances; the crux of the US promise of security was "if the soviets fuck with you we will baptize the entire area in nuclear hellfire".

By NOT responding, the US is showing our allies that we cannot be trusted to treat their existential threats as seriously as we say, we instead would appear as a weak guarantor of security.

If we appear to be weak and unable to meet their realistic security needs, they will either:

A: Develop the capacity on their own to defend those needs, no matter what
B: Turn to other powers to guarantee their defense.

If A, then congrats, you may have just ended the NPT and potentially opened up a Pandora's Box of paranoid nations that rush for nuclear weapons technology out of fear and paranoia; as it stands, the US has many nuclear weapons in host countries, many of which have an implied understanding that while the US has ultimate control over those bombs, in an emergency they (the ally) could use those bombs. That implied "lease" keeps a lot of those nations somewhat calm; they get to have an ace-in-the-hole that they can control (to an extent), and we get to keep ultimate atomic stewardship and can keep nuclear weapons and forces stationed in places like Italy.

If B, then we lose major Geo-strategic footing in the area. Perhaps the country will turn to China, or Russia. That's bad for our position of power, and could even trigger a band-wagon effect of other nations leaving us if they feel weakness.

tl;dr- if Kim nukes Tokyo, we pretty much HAVE to deliver a mushroom pizza to maintain our credibility as a national security broker.

File: 517.jpg (9KB, 248x233px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 248x233px

>>35131201
Which would result in US Soil getting nuked. Face it, despite the fact the US military and government might recognized the geopolitic necessity of adhering to mutual defence pacts, almost every US citizen would rage and overthrow the government for their actions that directly lead to the nuking of a major US city and deaths hundreds of thousands of US citizens all for "some Japs on the other side of the world". I think the government realizes this would be the domestic reaction and WOULD NOT retaliate with a nuclear response if Japan was nuked by NK.

>>35131376
>>35130016
The concept described in these two posts is a Soviet idea known as Decoupling.

>>35131376
>has an autistic view of human behavior
>anime reaction image

it checks out

>>35131376
We retard raged across 2 middle eastern countries as a result of 9/11, and destabilized almost the entire region as a result.

We nuked Japan twice as a result of Pearl Harbor.

The US public is not adverse to absolute nativist, primal barbarism when it perceives an existential threat, even when overblown. Remember, after 9/11 GWB's approval ratings were 90%. Pretty much every democrat who had days before called him a hick were jumping at the impending blood harvest and signing the PATRIOT act.

A nuke from the DPRK will just piss us off and fill us with a fiery resolve to end the Korean standoff once and for all, China and nork nukes be damned.

>>35131486
Apparently this researcher from a major US defence and strategy think tank agrees that decoupling may be a major concern going forward and OP actually has a point.

https://warontherocks.com/2017/09/decoupling-is-back-in-asia-a-1960s-playbook-wont-solve-these-problems/

>>35131623
Yes, and both those attacks you described were on US SOIL. Learn to read you stupid fucking retard.

>>35131637
Yep. We've entertained it on /k/ a couple of times in North Korea threads. This is just a belligerent spin on the thought.

>>35131645
>a nuclear surprise attack on friendly soil that kills US citizens wouldn't piss off the US

Spoilers: The US has military facilities in Japan.

There would be an American body count.

You are sadly mistaken if you think the US would wait for the North Koreans to try again.

If they're willing to kill Americans with nuclear hellfire, an immediate, preemptive counterforce strike is by far the safest option.

Especially since the North Koreans don't have second strike capability.

File: bart this nigga.png (62KB, 699x704px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 699x704px

>>35130016
>If they nuked NK, then the NK could retaliate by nuking USA soil
How does a 47,000 sq.mi pane of glass launch a nuke exactly?

File: Col-Olds.jpg (2MB, 3506x3600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3506x3600px

Nope. Exact opposite is true. The only thing protecting NK nuke launching sites from preemptive US nukes is that China wants to preserve the buffer state that is NK. However, once NK launches a nuke, the situation changes, China no longer has the power to stop military intervention against NK as SK and Japan would be willing to destroy NK at any cost.

Because of this, China would then stand down as a defender of NK, and then the US would launch countless nuclear strikes onto any and all NK military facilities, wiping out their tiny ballistic missile inventory.

Thus, the NKs know that their first nuke launch will be their only one, and therefore they have no scenario where they can launch and nuke and not be nuked in return. Simple logic.

>>35131645
Hawaii was a US territory, not the US proper.

But fine, lets talk Gulf of Tonkin. That was a US warship, but not civilian life.

Let's talk the USS Maine. As above, military lives.

Let's talk the Lusitannia even.

You are even more of a drooling retard to think there arent hundreds and thousands of Americans who would die or be directly impacted by a nuclear attack on Japan. That's billions in American investments, innumerable American businessmen, diplomats, and even military forces with regards to advisors and officers.

You cannot nuke ONLY the Japanese by striking at one of the most important cities of the American pseudo-empire. It WOULD kill Americans too.

>>35131670
even if no Americans die it doesn't matter. North Korea attacking anyone would show that they are absolutely suicidal lunatics with the intent and will to destroy one of the US's closest allies. It would be all the justification needed for every nuke required to turn the DPRK into a crater to be used.

>>35131699
Your typical American DOES NOT GIVE A SHIT about "American lives or business interests" in a foreign country. They would justify it as "too bad, wrong place, wrong time." At the end of the day it's peanuts in comparison to the threat of their home town or a major American city ON AMERICAN SOIL being wiped out. Simply put, politicians WILL NOT endanger AMERICAN SOIL for some non-white people on the other side of the world.

Basically if NK nuked Japan, the only reason we wouldnt nuke back is because we wouldnt want to endanger any SKs with potential radiation or fallout.

We would just drop a bomb on Kims palace, if he wasnt home it is almost a guarantee we know where he is at all times, so bomb wherever that is, and thats all we really need to do.

You take out the little retard running the show the Nks have no reason to be doing any attacking of us because they no longer have the threat of death on them by their own leader because they didnt do what he told them to.

Then China sweeps in and establishes their government there and the NK people become Chinese people and do what their new leaders tell them to.

>>35131739
>Your typical American DOES NOT GIVE A SHIT about "American lives or business interests" in a foreign country. They would justify it as "too bad, wrong place, wrong time." At the end of the day it's peanuts in comparison to the threat of their home town or a major American city ON AMERICAN SOIL being wiped out. Simply put, politicians WILL NOT endanger AMERICAN SOIL for some non-white people on the other side of the world.

Japan's well being is seen as part of the global American order. If it's Us vs Them, we won't hesitate to make sure there is no more "them." Between this thread's topic and that reality, I think this is why there's a good chance of a grave miscalculation that results in a nuclear war.

>>35131739
I think you're willfully ignoring historical evidence.

America cared enough about South Korea to take 36,000 dead fighting for it.

They cared enough about Pearl Harbor to take 400,000 dead.

Ultimately though, it depends on the Oval Office, being that the Commander in Chief of the military is the one who actually launches nuclear weapons.

If US history is any indication, the most probably American reaction would be a massive nuclear attack on North Korea, both because the US basically never surrenders, and because it would reduce the number of warheads that North Korea can drop on the US.

Americans are deeply bellicose people, a cursory examination of history will reveal that.

>>35131766
No it isn't! Your typical retarded burger thinks that the capital of Japan is Hong Kong or something.

>>35131781
>No it isn't! Your typical retarded burger thinks that the capital of Japan is Hong Kong or something.

They don't have to know where it is; everyone knows that Japan exists and that they're friends with America - and that's enough for the public.

>>35130016
If NK nuked Tokyo you'd be receiving your draft notice that day and could see the light on the horizon that night from all the munitions, including tactical nukes, we are using to turn them into a sheet of glass.

>>35131766
>>35131781
Bruh, there isn't a vote on whether to launch a nuclear weapon.

Either the president decides to launch it, or he doesn't.

I'm personally betting that a nuclear strike would be seen as the safest option, even with the danger of a North Korean second strike.

File: 2439035_1329304796570.17res_500_281.jpg (92KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 500x281px

>>35131774
Korean War and Vietnam Wars were to prevent the spread of the existential threat known as communism to the USA. Nothing to do with protecting or retaliating on behalf of Allies. Pearl Harbor was a direct attack on US soil. Territory, soil, whatever same shit. ARE YOU PEOPLE THIS FUCKING RETARDED SO AS NOT TO UNDERSTAND THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES HERE?

File: video-piensa-en_1504812788.jpg.resized.jpg (27KB, 500x280px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x280px

Let them all kill each other
In the end the Japanese will Reign!

>>35131809
>ARE YOU PEOPLE THIS FUCKING RETARDED SO AS NOT TO UNDERSTAND THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES HERE?
jews?

>>35131809
>a country nobody has heard of invading another country that nobody has ever heard of
>existential threat to the US
>a country that everybody is well aware of and afraid of launching a nuclear attack on a country everybody is well aware of and likes
>not an existential threat

I find your logic inconsistent.

If the USSR and PRC were an existential threat to the US in the 50s and 60s, then North Korea would become some kind of giga-nigger existential threat post-nuke.

If two small nukes were enough to create anime, imagine what another large one would do. It's too horrible to contemplate.

>>35131798
>Bruh, there isn't a vote on whether to launch a nuclear weapon.
>Either the president decides to launch it, or he doesn't.
>I'm personally betting that a nuclear strike would be seen as the safest option, even with the danger of a North Korean second strike.

Indeed. It's not about whether the US uses nukes, it's about if the US is okay with itself using nukes.

>>35131836
>it's about if the US is okay with itself using nukes

We kind of solved that in 1945, didn't we?

>>35130389
>None of this matters however because as soon as he fires first the Chinese will have so many screaming squints crammed up his ass it'll make Clint Eastwood look like a character from Utena.

farewell, my poor sides

>>35131809
OP you are lacking in some critical thinking areas or you're trolling

>>35130128
military tactics and strategy are fair game for /k/, fuccboi

>>35131864
Or maybe I just understand how realpolitik works and how at the end of the day, actors in any given situation will make a decision ultimately based on self-interest.

>>35131905
>Or maybe I just understand how realpolitik works and how at the end of the day, actors in any given situation will make a decision ultimately based on self-interest.

ought to look up the concept of Enlightened Self Interest there, pal.

>>35131905
>I understand realpolitik
>that's why I'm proposing that the US will render its military alliances and nuclear deterrence as impotent
Okay, so you're either a sisterfucking retard or trolling. /k/ loses either way. I kinda hope you die pretty soon.

>>35130016
>If they nuked NK, then the NK could retaliate by nuking USA soil.
Yeah good fucking luck, we're behind 7000 SM-2, -3, & -6, AEGIS, laser 747s, Patriots, and black ops shit we don't know about yet
Even if you succeed you'll probably hit California, roasting millions of leftists alive and ensuring the right wins in the US for the next 20 years

>>35131973
Are you retarded and/or have no reading comprehension ability? The US will forgo it's military alliances to PROTECT US SOIL. I didn't mention anything about nuclear deterrence WHEN IT COMES TO US SOIL. Of course the US will respond with nuclear if US SOIL were attacked. YOU FUCKING IDIOT.

File: United_States_GDP_by_States.png (69KB, 400x552px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 400x552px

>>35131993
Yeah , I'm US would LOVE to lose California.

>>35132058
>implying Commiefornia is worth all that money

>>35132020
Translated:
>America is a pussy and you're a retard for saying I'm wrong.

>>35132069
I'm not saying America is a pussy, just that it will act in self-interest at the end of the day.

Let's say your best friend's arms and legs were cut off by a bully. You can kill the bully no problem, but in doing so, it would ensure your dick and balls would get clipped off by gardening shears. Would you do it?

>>35131834
>If two small nukes were enough to create anime, imagine what another large one would do

you underestimate the nips. they were weird LONG before we irradiated them.

>>35132020
>NK Nukes
>US soil
Go to bed.

>>35130128
It should move to /trash/ because it's fucking stupid

>>35132109
Pretty easy strawman to knock down for you. The outcome of damage is not certain, and the scope of consequences of action, and inaction, to North Korea go far, far beyond the peninsula.

>>35130016
If NK actually launches a nuke at the US it would probably be intercepted by the multiple missile defenses set up around the US

The tradeoff here (which is something that you should've thought of already, but you're a retard) is that North Korea would be virtually vaporized in the retaliation, due to the size and sparse population of the country.

North Korea probably understands that they, as a country and probably even as a people, would most likely cease to exist after a nuclear exchange with the US. Meanwhile the US would suffer a fleshwound in comparison

File: America minus liberals.png (466KB, 1011x1316px) Image search: [Google]

466KB, 1011x1316px

>>35132058
>NK nukes the shit out of cali cities
>All of the hard industry (Farming, resource extraction, etc.) that produces most of the state's GDP is more or less untouched
>State is no longer one party dominant enforced by the masses of democrat voters in the cities
>China and America tag team North Korea into a couple hundred square kilometers of glass and a 50km exclusionary zone south of China's borders

I mean, there are worse outcomes

>>35131809
Did you really need to reply with an edgelord weaboo pic?

>>35132229
But a successful nuclear strike by North Kore means a for-real great depression for the US.

File: Screen Shot 2017-09-10 at 11.08.36 PM.png (317KB, 1972x1242px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 1972x1242px

>>35132231
Guess again you stupid dummy. What is it with burgers spouting facts that are 100% untrue with such conviction?

>>35131376
I honestly doubt that Noth Korea has more than 1 operational nuke at nay given time.

>>35130016
The problem with that logic is that in the scenario you just described the DPRK instigated war with a country that they are not currently at war with, with a surprise nuclear attack.

The main line of thinking here is that, "if the DPRK is willing to launch a suprise nuclear attack against a country they are not currently at war with, there's no reason to beleive they would not launch a nuclear attack against countries they are currently at war with."

To say the least, a nuclear response to the DPRK launching a surprise nuclear attack against a country they aren't at war with, would not be off the table. Not the likelyhood is, as others have stated the most likely response would be saturation bombing of the DPRK until the ROK is it's own island nation, but that's besides the point.

>>35132058
>muh GDP
California is a net loss, both economically and socially.
The norks would be doing us and the world a favor.

>>35130016
>If they nuked NK, then the NK could retaliate by nuking USA soil.
wut
How exactly does nuking NK magically give them the ability to strike the US mainland if they did not have it before? Do you really think that's how weapons tech works? Because it really isn't.

If you think the US nuking NK in a retaliatory strike would somehow magically give NK permission to nuke the US without reprisal you're equally retarded as if your thinking is along the lines in my first point. If they had the capability the most logical thing would be to strike the US directly in the first strike with everything they have, because it doesn't really matter if they target Japan, some other local country or the US directly, being the aggresor with nukes means they get fucked by everyone (including China) for going full retard. Once they use nukes on one target the assumption has to be that they are willing to use them on any target, therefore you eliminate their ability to do so as swiftly as possible.

The only real question would be who won the race for territory in the aftermath of the initial exchange, SK/USA or China.

>>35130016
>NK could retaliate by nuking USA soil.
Lol

File: 1440026024296.jpg (33KB, 800x535px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 800x535px

>>35132109
Except NK has no ride-out-and-launch capability. If we decide to nuke them we're going to completely destroy their atomic arsenal. The glow in the dark CIA nuke target picking niggers aren't stupid.

Our balls are fine because in killing the bully we also destroy his garden shears.

File: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.png (538KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

538KB, 1366x768px

>ywn be on the entry team for Pyongyang target-priority-1
>ywn brutally hunt down Kimmy
>ywn holster your weapon to beat a North Korean general into telling you where Kimmy is
>ywn drag a sobbing Kim Jong Un kicking and screaming out into the streets of a burning Pyongyang
>ywn be caught on film executing the last of the Kim dynasty in the streets after screaming at him in Korean, telling him about his crimes and how if there is a hell, it's been waiting earnestly for 30 years
>ywn turn Kim Jong Un into a modern Mussolini
>ywn be remembered for bringing an era of terror to an end in the most metal way possible
>ywn be A REAL AMERICAN HERO
fug

>>35132422
>Except NK has no ride-out-and-launch capability. If we decide to nuke them we're going to completely destroy their atomic arsenal. The glow in the dark CIA nuke target picking niggers aren't stupid.

We've missed the boat on that one, unfortunately. Their tunnel complexes are fully capable of servicing a missile for launch and they can fire from minimally prepared surfaces in a handful of minutes. If the complexes survive, they have a launch capacity that they can attempt to make use of.

>>35132454
>If the complexes survive,
Which they wont, because those are the things we would nuke first.

So I repeat, NK has no ROaL capability.

Also, THAAD.

>>35132475
>Which they wont, because those are the things we would nuke first.

We'd need to use surface bursts of no more than a handful of kilotons to maximize force transfer and minimize fallout. We don't have the multi-megaton monsters you'd need to do kill bunkers with a no-fallout airburst.

>>35132454
>they can fire from minimally prepared surfaces in a handful of minutes
What, have they got a Shagohod or something?

>>35132505
Okay, and?

>>35132324
Far worse than that, it teaches the world that the US will not take action against nations that initiate nuclear force ... that is not a message you want to give India, Pakistan and Israel (and all the countries threatened by Israel)

>>35132531
>Okay, and?
>>35132529
>What, have they got a Shagohod or something?

There's a good chance we don't know where they all are.

File: 1475677236454.png (678KB, 850x464px) Image search: [Google]

678KB, 850x464px

>>35132454
>Their tunnel complexes are fully capable of servicing a missile for launch and they can fire from minimally prepared surfaces in a handful of minutes
Gonna need some citations on that.

>>35132454
Are you just making shit up now so your bullshit scenarios have a leg to stand on?

>>35132505
Airburst still produce fallout. You're think of upper atmospheric detonations, which have minimal ground effects.

Gonna admit I've missed the threads where OP persistently acted like a retard who had a layman's understanding of the subject and thought that made him an authority.

>>35132546

Adding onto that, it means that we need to have overflights underway to make sure there are no survivors for a pop-up launch.

>>35132547
>Gonna need some citations on that.

Alright, I'll be honest, I don't know how much their tunnel facilities can do, but it looks like they have the room to do a lot. I'd post the picture the North Korean state media put out of Kim Jong Un standing in a large, underground hangar with a ballistic missile if I could find it...

>>35132555
>Airburst still produce fallout. You're think of upper atmospheric detonations, which have minimal ground effects.

Yes, I know. Surface bursts of low yield, to make sure the fallout doesn't get to places we actually care about.

>>35131376
>Which would result in US Soil getting nuked.
Please explain to me how nuking the ever loving shit out of North Korea is going to result in North Korea nuking the US?

they'd probably nuke cali since its the closest, nothing of value would be lost

>>35132630
Hawaii is even closer and less valuable.

>>35132595
>I have literally no proof of this claim, but I will continue to assert it anyway
Also, I think you're really overestimating Norks capabilities here. They still haven't demonstrated the ability to make a rocket capable of reaching the US, let alone mate a nuke to said nonexistant rocket, LET ALONE the ability to pull of some sort of James Bond secret underground missile base shenanigans.

Clearly op has no idea how willing the US is to let nuke off!.

We only set off 300 or so. What's two more?

>>35132620
Seattle and the nuke sub bases in WA are the closest, highest-value targets.

Their missiles are likely shit-tier inaccurate, so I'd gues they'd go for Seattle/Vancouver in an airburst.

>>35132707
They'd probably go for Hawaii before ether went for Seattle.

File: 170725134907-schmerler-nk-10-large-169.jpg (25KB, 460x259px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 460x259px

>>35132686
>They still haven't demonstrated the ability to make a rocket capable of reaching the US

They've literally fired missiles capable of reaching the US twice, on July 5th and August 1st.

>LET ALONE the ability to pull of some sort of James Bond secret underground missile base shenanigans.

Pic related.

File: linify_20170901_0048.png (3MB, 1022x1022px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1022x1022px

>>35132686
>It's another "North Korea can't do it!" thread
As the other anon said, some pretty fuckin smart rocket scientists in the West analyzed their last few launches and said pretty firmly the Norks could put 500 kilograms of fried rice in downtown Denver.

>But they haven't proved it fits on the rocket yet!
Please don't encourage them to launch a live ICBM into the sea carrying a nuke, because we said the same shit about China and that's exactly how they proved it.

>>35132779
https://sputniknews.com/asia/201709061057123103-pyongang-bomb-more-powerful-japan/

The Japs estimate at least 120kt

File: meet-americas-thaad-one-of-the-worlds-most-advanced-missile-defense-systems-that-has-china-spooked.jpg (106KB, 1190x595px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1190x595px

>>35132779
>the Norks have real big boy missiles guys, this is super cereal

>laughs in THAAD

>>35132812
>Laughs in 49.5% accuracy against early cold war type ballistic missiles

File: 1502235816894.png (160KB, 700x592px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 700x592px

>>35132812

File: 19623317_199271160601560_7779324287281790976_n.jpg (22KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 480x480px

>>35132824
>>35132828
>Implying any attempted missile strike on the mainland US by NK wouldn't be met with a mass volley of THAADs making up for their inaccuracy
Get out of your bunkers and take off the tinfoil, the Norks can't touch us.

>>35132877
The point I've been trying to make is that ballistic defense is not a sure thing and that if you're going to do something like nuke North Korea, be aware of the challenges and do it right.

>>35132896
I'm pretty sure that the glow in the dark secret squirrel spooks picking potential North Korean nukes targets have already taken this all into account, thanks for the warning though.

>>35130230
Fuck off commie

File: 1489361772211.png (1MB, 1208x1047px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1208x1047px

>>35131836
>it's about if the US is okay with itself using nukes.

I for one maintain a constant erection at the thought.

US should really just attack already and take them by surprise.

>>35131786
>le nation states have friends meme
Nation states have rational interests, they do not have friends. I know the nip cartoons are part of the memes here but you kids need to get real. Americans don't give a single shit about Japan or the Japanese outside of peacetime economic interests that would quickly mean less than nothing when the world starts going to hell in a handbasket. If nukes actually started flying the Japs would realize fairly quick - if they somehow don't already know this - that they have outlived their usefulness; we will drop them like a sack of nuclear potatoes. I wouldn't be complaining either, the thinly veiled contempt for Americans is absolutely palpable wherever you go, these have never been people who legitimately deserved our protection.

>>35132109

That's not quite the same because the implication is that the bully is untrustworthy psycho who's just as likely to go after your dick and ball with gardening shears even if you don't do anything so it's in your best interest to kill him anyway.

It's in America's self interest to destroy a nuclear willing NK regardless of who they attack because if they're willing to nuke anything they're willing to nuke America, provoked or not.

The idea of just sitting back glaring because they might attack us if we do something doesn't quite add up when they might also attack us if we don't do something anyway.

>>35131774
We also don't really give a shit about foreign affairs. The USS Cole and multiple embassy attacks will verify that.

>>35133279
Shhh, don't ruin the sociopath's beautiful narrative with logic! He's so invested in it! >>35133270

>>35132069
Sorry faggot, real America doesn't actually care about your irrelevant anime islands. These alliances were cut by corrupt elites decades ago, not the American people. Trump is different from the cucks who cut these garbage alliances around the globe, especially the real globalist rats that signed the Japan alliance. He's not going to let Americans die for these unconstitutional international agreements abroad and especially not at home.
>b-but muh (((international reputation)))
We're still massively rich on the global stage. What's the international community going to do? Not do business with the US anymore? KEK.

File: 590.png (248KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 640x480px

>>35132275
>chart filled with valuations of made up service economy sectors that are completely propped up by the fed's economic manipulation
>mfw I found someone who actually believes the "we're a (((service economy))) now, goy" line

>>35132707
Assuming we ape shit their asses, HOW will they nuke the US. They have zero second strike capabilities. They have zero early warning.

>>35131739
You're assuming the U.S is not capable of eliminating all of North Koreas strike capabilities in the initial counter attack. They are.

>>35130230
Fuck you lefty piece of shit.

>>35132707
Do you know how complicated nuclear launch capable subs are you fucking retard? They can't just strap a nuke onto a SCUD and strap it to a submarine you fucking moron. Their construction would require major sophisticated ship building facilities that North Korea does not have you fucking dumb asshole.

>>35133270
>I wouldn't be complaining either, the thinly veiled contempt for Americans is absolutely palpable wherever you go, these have never been people who legitimately deserved our protection.

You may also find, that most of the time, they never asked for your protection (but got it regardless).

>>35130040
>trusting the chinks

Anon....

>>35131376
>Implying Chow Yun-Fatass and his Squint Squad have more than one nuke

jej

DPRK will *not* do a first-strike, they know we'll launch EVERYTHING to shoot that ICBM down and also turn Pyongyang into ash. Regardless if we use nukes or enough conventional HE to raise Curtis LeMeme back from the dead; everything vaguely target-like is getting annihilated. The Norks remember the 1950s bombing campaign the US did on them, they are intensely aware of this capability. They might do "provocative" ICBM tests into the sea, they might test some warheads underground; but they will absolutely not do a first-strike on actually populated areas.


The only reason DPRK has nukes is because they saw what the US did to Saddam and Gaddafi and no self-respecting Kim would want to be killed by the US in some goddamn regime-change operation; the nukes/ICBMs programme is just to deter against a US preemptive strike.


We really wouldn't have this problem if the US didn't insist on tricking countries into giving up their WMD in the name of "counter-proliferation" and then killing their leaders a couple years later, really, thanks to all this neocon "regime change" nonsense Kim got himself some nukes and he'll use that to preserve his abhorrent government. What a goddamn mess.

>>35131739
If the world economy implodes, which it absolutely would if the Tokyo stock exchange got nuked, I think you would see Americans looking to place blame SOMEWHERE. All the media machine has to do is make the DPRK into the dragon of the day, and it will get the St. George treatment.

Even if the "American People" dont want it, it's in part irrelevant. Nuclear weapons are not tied to a voting mechanism, nor do they need congressional authority.

An American city is worth less than our global standing; we can rebuild any lost city given time. Rebuilding our world order and alliances is much harder and would impact the bottom line of millions of Americans who live paycheck to paycheck buying foreign goods and clothes.

>>35133282
Hard to do much with non-state actors, especially when the leadership at the time is almost willfully blind about the situation (USS Cole).

>>35132273
Depends on where they hit. There are many potential targets, but if they can only strike once it's hard to predict where it goes.

>>35131809
Our entry into the European theater of ww2 AND ww1 very much had to do with protecting allies. Nazi Germany was doomed to lose against the USSR, only Japan was an immediate, direct threat against the US. In ww1 our entry was predicated on American lives "lost on the other side of the world who were at the wrong place at the wrong time" to paraphrase your earlier sentiment.

>>35131836
Why the hell WOULDNT we be okay with using nukes? Our literal world order is based on the premise that we will use them. We still retain a first-use policy. Even the Russians and Chinese dont have an official first-use policy.

>>35133854
>bringing Curtis LeMay back from the dead with explosives

That's pretty fucking metal

>>35130016
No im pretty sure nuking Tokio would fuck shit up everywhere, cause US would nuke back, then china would nuke too, then god knows, maybe russia too cause why not, shit is fucked yo.
only japan and sk is concerned about those NK nukes anyway

>>35132231
If you think the majority of California's contribution to GDP is manufacturing or agriculture related, how did you make that post? Because you obviously don't understand how technology or software works or where they come from.

>>35130016
If they nuked NK, it would be dead because it's a tiny fucking country and all of its infrastructure is clustered on its capital.

>>35130016
>nuking a country under a nuclear umbrella means you won't be nuked

Wat

>>35133911
It's all spread out and has fortifications everywhere. Their coastline is dotted with missile batteries that are dug into the cliffs. Along the Kaesong-Musan approach, NK maintains 8 to 1 force ratios in armor and infantry. America can't win with a single nuke.

>>35131739
Speak for yourself retard

>>35130016
>doesnt know USA trains for & prefers first strike capability

Hard for NKto launch retaliatory nukes when their silos are gone ...

>>35134032
...

>>35130408
Because there was no need to, since they can't hit mainland US anyway.
Duh.

>>35133646
Honestly wouldn't surprise me if they tried, i mean their whole ballistic missile program so far has been Wile E Coyote tier.

>they'll nuke US SOIL!
with WHAT?

>>35130408
Three reasons:

1. Data from ballistic tests is not only valuable for North Korea, but also for people who are supposed to analyze threats posed by North Korea.
2. Similarly, data from flight profile of ABM interceptor missile is valuable to any belligerent.
3. Interceptor missiles are very expensive.

>>35131376
With no reentry vehicle tested or displayed, it is clear that they lack the ability, at least for now.

>>35130040
>>35133809
The Chinese are liars

File: 1492698594656.jpg (11KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 400x300px

>>35130016

Dude, you're retarded. NK launching a nuke shows that they are not only advanced enough to have a fully working nuclear program but that they ate also crazy enough to use it.

Doing nothing would only embolden Kim to be more aggressive. The only option is a full and immediate decapitation strike. Whether or not it involves nukes is up to debate, but literally the only thing that would save the current regime from all out destruction would be China telling the world that they will defend NK against any attack, rich they would be nuts to do so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frAEmhqdLFs

>>35130016
The US would not need to react because China would turn South Korea into an island specifically to prevent a US puppet state on their border.

>>35132505
We've got penetrating nuclear ordinance, their bunker complexes will no longer be connected to tunnels that reach the surface once we're done.

>>35132800
500 kilograms of payload, not to be confused with yield.

>>35132109
>just that it will act in self-interest at the end of the day.


Yes.
American self interest is in the furtherance of its security goals. Among these are the protection of the US economic interests and the prevention of any threat to the US, or the preemption of an existing threat.

The US will look at the situation and see an ally and major trading partner destroyed by a nuclear attack by a nation that has a stated willingness to also attack the US.
Failure to respond would weaken the US credibility and status as a guarantor of security. This would have long term, detrimental effects on US security.

While the American people may not see these downsides from their living rooms watching CNN report live from the ruins of Tokyo, the US government has. They do not need to consult with the American people. They know they they are better off confronting the threat now, even if the risk is an isolated attack on the US because further down the road, the risk will be much broader and damaging.

File: fallout.jpg (79KB, 750x550px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 750x550px

>>35132454
>Their tunnel complexes are fully capable of servicing a missile for launch
This is not accurate.

>and they can fire from minimally prepared surfaces in a handful of minutes. If the complexes survive,
IF.

>>35132505
>We'd need to use surface bursts of no more than a handful of kilotons to maximize force transfer and minimize fallout. We don't have the multi-megaton monsters you'd need to do kill bunkers with a no-fallout airburst.
This is also not accurate.
B61-12 are accurate enough to destroy these facilities without fallout using airbursts.
Pic related.

>>35132769
You cant service anything in there.
Don't confuse a shelter with a hardened missile alert facility.

>>35134787
Their weapon is probably about that weight.

>>35134222
The US believes that the RV on the last test survived down to 1000 ft AGL. This is sufficient for a maximally effective airburst on urban targets.

>>35132555
>Airburst still produce fallout.
It is negligible.

>>35131739
>Your typical American DOES NOT GIVE A SHIT about "American lives or business interests" in a foreign country.

1.) He does. You can generalize the American public as being ignorant all you want but for the past sixty years it has been understood (even by the most supposedly ignorant redneck) that if the Soviets/Russians tried to march west on Berlin the United States would help defend against this. Likewise, if the Norks attacked Tokyo, we'd respond; you severely overestimate how isolationist Americans are.

2.) If the typical American didn't, quick military decisions like a retaliatory strike require no input from the population at large.

>>35131739
It's Japan. Even non-weeaboo Average Americans love Japan. They make cool technology and invented sushi, most people view it as a fun and exciting modern country. I don't think Millenials would be cool with anyone attacking the land of K-pop and Samsung either. Anyone who attacked Japan or Korea would receive a complete and total ass-kicking by the US before the rest of NATO even had a chance to blink.

File: drk acme.gif (2MB, 249x206px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 249x206px

>>35134093

>>35133270
You're right in that nations only have rational interests, but you're wrong in what they are. It is absolutely in the US's interests to defend our allies, with nuclear weapons if neccesary, and if US civilians die as a result it is acceptable. Modern global trade interconnectivity means that the well being of our citizens depends on there being friendly nations we can freely trade with, so defending that is absolutely in our interests.

Also, making sure that we are the ones patrolling off of our rival's shores/basing troops on their continents and not vice versa is hugely important to the security of US citizens.

>>35132275
Oh shit, he has a chart!

There is no point in usage of nuclear weapons by the US, conventional means are easily enough to get NK on its knees in the matter of days if not hours.

>>35133214
>wishes for a nuclear winter intensify

File: 1492058879948.jpg (321KB, 1971x1971px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 1971x1971px

>>35132422

>>35130016
>Theoretically

O yeah. Theoretically. That. Theoretically we should have moon bases and people should eat 5 fruit or veg a day.

Kim Fa Tman would be charcoal in minutes.

>>35130016
>NK nukes japan
>japan releases their variable fighters and its The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere 2.0

>>35133996
>with a single nuke

You're right

Luckily, even a single nuclear strike against the US or its allies is an open pass for a full-scale nuclear retaliation, as in multiple nukes over a variety of platforms and delivery systems.

Not to mention the conventional weapons attack that would either precede and/or follow the retaliatory strike.
Nork would cease to exist after a day