U.S. may launch preemptive strike against North Korea


RootBeerMan

macrumors 65816
Jan 3, 2016
1,270
5,004
What a fool. NKO has a million man army and they're always raring to go south of the DMZ at a word from their diminutive tyrant. I truly feel for the people of SKo who will bear the brunt of what comes after. Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll have an aneurysm tonight while watching Faux News.
 

Chew Toy McCoy

macrumors regular
May 13, 2016
202
2,832
What a fool. NKO has a million man army and they're always raring to go south of the DMZ at a word from their diminutive tyrant. I truly feel for the people of SKo who will bear the brunt of what comes after. Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll have an aneurysm tonight while watching Faux News.
You mean South Korea doesn't want to take one for team when we light the fuse from a safe distance?
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,835
Midlife, Midwest
From the (linked) article:

North Korea is not believed to have a deliverable long-range nuclear weapon, according to U.S. experts,
Emphasis mine. Because, uh I don't know, our intelligence never get's these things wrong?

But even if - as seems likely - North Korea lacks the means to deliver a nuclear weapon on Los Angeles or Okinawa, it may very well have the means to detonate one in Seoul.

And beyond that: China is unlikely to be very happy about the US unilaterally attacking a country on its borders. What is going to happen if North Korea dissolves into chaos? Are Donald Trump and the US military absolutely certain that North Korea is just going to accept an attack, and forget about it? Go back to being a good little rogue dictatorship? Because I think there is a pretty good chance that, if attacked by the US, the North Koreans will spend years plotting some sort of revenge.

What is the international legal rationale for a "pre-emptive" strike on North Korea? We have a world-wide non-proliferation treaty. But that doesn't authorize military strikes every time Donald Trump thinks his poll numbers need a bump.

The US may very well be able to launch cruise missiles and even ground-penetrating guided bombs on North Korea without serious risk of immediate casualties. But two things are certain: One, we cannot eliminate or even seriously damage N. Korea's nuclear arsenal with any degree of certainty. We simply do not know where, and how much, North Korea has in terms of completed weapons and infrastructure. And two: If the N. Korean regime survives (as it almost certainly will) - they will do everything in their power to exact some form of retaliation.
 

RootBeerMan

macrumors 65816
Jan 3, 2016
1,270
5,004
You mean South Korea doesn't want to take one for team when we light the fuse from a safe distance?
Who would. I hate to think what this will do to the world economy, being that SoKo is a major exporter for many things. Trump is a clear and present danger to the world, at large.
[doublepost=1492131339][/doublepost]
From the (linked) article:



Emphasis mine. Because, uh I don't know, our intelligence never get's these things wrong?

But even if - as seems likely - North Korea lacks the means to deliver a nuclear weapon on Los Angeles or Okinawa, it may very well have the means to detonate one in Seoul.

And beyond that: China is unlikely to be very happy about the US unilaterally attacking a country on its borders. What is going to happen if North Korea dissolves into chaos? Are Donald Trump and the US military absolutely certain that North Korea is just going to accept an attack, and forget about it? Go back to being a good little rogue dictatorship? Because I think there is a pretty good chance that, if attacked by the US, the North Koreans will spend years plotting some sort of revenge.

What is the international legal rationale for a "pre-emptive" strike on North Korea? We have a world-wide non-proliferation treaty. But that doesn't authorize military strikes every time Donald Trump thinks his poll numbers need a bump.

The US may very well be able to launch cruise missiles and even ground-penetrating guided bombs on North Korea without serious risk of immediate casualties. But two things are certain: One, we cannot eliminate or even seriously damage N. Korea's nuclear arsenal with any degree of certainty. We simply do not know where, and how much, North Korea has in terms of completed weapons and infrastructure. And two: If the N. Korean regime survives (as it almost certainly will) - they will do everything in their power to exact some form of retaliation.
Do not forget that Japan is also within range of their smaller missiles and they've made threats to them before.
 

Septembersrain

Contributor
Dec 14, 2013
3,362
3,717
Texas
I find it impossibly viable that they do this. Far too many South Koreans would be in jeopardy at this point.

This is far more complicated than just dropping a few bombs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dsching

HEK

macrumors 68040
Sep 24, 2013
3,353
5,794
US Eastern time zone
From the (linked) article:



Emphasis mine. Because, uh I don't know, our intelligence never get's these things wrong?

But even if - as seems likely - North Korea lacks the means to deliver a nuclear weapon on Los Angeles or Okinawa, it may very well have the means to detonate one in Seoul.

And beyond that: China is unlikely to be very happy about the US unilaterally attacking a country on its borders. What is going to happen if North Korea dissolves into chaos? Are Donald Trump and the US military absolutely certain that North Korea is just going to accept an attack, and forget about it? Go back to being a good little rogue dictatorship? Because I think there is a pretty good chance that, if attacked by the US, the North Koreans will spend years plotting some sort of revenge.

What is the international legal rationale for a "pre-emptive" strike on North Korea? We have a world-wide non-proliferation treaty. But that doesn't authorize military strikes every time Donald Trump thinks his poll numbers need a bump.

The US may very well be able to launch cruise missiles and even ground-penetrating guided bombs on North Korea without serious risk of immediate casualties. But two things are certain: One, we cannot eliminate or even seriously damage N. Korea's nuclear arsenal with any degree of certainty. We simply do not know where, and how much, North Korea has in terms of completed weapons and infrastructure. And two: If the N. Korean regime survives (as it almost certainly will) - they will do everything in their power to exact some form of retaliation.
Mmmm delivery system.......one ship....one shipping container......one port city gone. Easy pesszy who needs missiles when we have Fed Ex and UPS. And if you believe every shipping container is searched, well I got an orange buffoon that thinks he can be president....oh wait.
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,835
Midlife, Midwest
No. Trump likes to boast
Trump's boasting is, IMHO, among the least of his problems.

I'm quite certain that, over the years, the US military has given prior Presidents, from Eisenhower and Kennedy to Bush and Obama, various military options to take out or otherwise deal with troublesome places like North Korea.

The thing is, those Presidents usually had the sort of good judgment to know when a military action was a bad idea. And sadly, there are some cases where those Presidents made a bad decision - such as the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961.

I honestly don't think Donald Trump has the sort of temperament and good judgment to adequately make the right decision about what to do with North Korea. His entire career has been littered with the wreckage of impulsive bad decisions. The bankruptcy of Trump Air; the numerous failed casinos; etc. etc. Stiffed employees, suppliers, lenders, customers, taxpayers, etc.

The stakes here are much, much higher. Infinitely higher, if the truth be known.

I am hoping that Trump's advisors - specifically James Mattis and Rex Tillerson, are going to explain adequately to Trump that taking a direct military strike on North Korea is going to have very serious consequences. That a military strike cannot possibly guarantee to destroy the PRK's nuclear assets. And that a military strike will - if anything - harden both the resolve of the Korean leadership, and their grip upon that sorry nation.
 

HEK

macrumors 68040
Sep 24, 2013
3,353
5,794
US Eastern time zone
Trump's boasting is, IMHO, among the least of his problems.

I'm quite certain that, over the years, the US military has given prior Presidents, from Eisenhower and Kennedy to Bush and Obama, various military options to take out or otherwise deal with troublesome places like North Korea.

The thing is, those Presidents usually had the sort of good judgment to know when a military action was a bad idea. And sadly, there are some cases where those Presidents made a bad decision - such as the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961.

I honestly don't think Donald Trump has the sort of temperament and good judgment to adequately make the right decision about what to do with North Korea. His entire career has been littered with the wreckage of impulsive bad decisions. The bankruptcy of Trump Air; the numerous failed casinos; etc. etc. Stiffed employees, suppliers, lenders, customers, taxpayers, etc.

The stakes here are much, much higher. Infinitely higher, if the truth be known.

I am hoping that Trump's advisors - specifically James Mattis and Rex Tillerson, are going to explain adequately to Trump that taking a direct military strike on North Korea is going to have very serious consequences. That a military strike cannot possibly guarantee to destroy the PRK's nuclear assets. And that a military strike will - if anything - harden both the resolve of the Korean leadership, and their grip upon that sorry nation.
The Donald will prove to the North Korean people that their leader has been telling his people the truth about the aggressive war mongering American government. Full speed ahead on missile and bomb development. Will help recruit even bigger North Korean army from remaining elderly and kids.

Don't count on any new Samsung phones or screens for iPhones. If armistice is broken, North Korea should send in artillary and multi million man army into South. After all we fought back when Japan attacked us.

17,000 artillary pieces raining down shells every six seconds on Seoul. Think about that. We will have to go nuclear to stop it. And I don't see China sitting calmly by sidelines, no matter how good the chocolate cake was at Mara Lago.

This is starting to get serious.
 
Last edited:

MadeTheSwitch

macrumors 6502a
Apr 20, 2009
827
15,203
But even if - as seems likely - North Korea lacks the means to deliver a nuclear weapon on Los Angeles or Okinawa, it may very well have the means to detonate one in Seoul.
It's even more likely that they could launch a chemical attack of some sort in some direction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jpietrzak8

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
What a fool. NKO has a million man army and they're always raring to go south of the DMZ at a word from their diminutive tyrant. I truly feel for the people of SKo who will bear the brunt of what comes after. Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll have an aneurysm tonight while watching Faux News.
The next wars won't be fought with manpower, a million man army is useless if you have no way of communicating and nukes are on the table.
 

Bug-Creator

macrumors 6502a
May 30, 2011
550
2,129
Germany
The next wars won't be fought with manpower, a million man army is useless if you have no way of communicating and nukes are on the table.
So the people of (South) Korea will either suffer from a million NK soldiers crossing the bordes (with or without a clear command structure) of from radiactive fallout after the US dropped 100 nukes over NK ?
 

Technarchy

macrumors 604
May 21, 2012
6,747
4,885
Tactically, it's probably feasible the USA could take NK with minimal damage and death in SK.

The buildup would be huge though, and would not go unnoticed. NK's forward artillery, air power, and infantry units would be toast within the first 30 minutes, and given the nations poor infrastructure, their comms would be borderline useless so coordination would be non-existent.

21st century warfare is something NK hasn't even come close to seeing. The shock and awe on moral and operational capabilities would be surreal and most of their units would probably end up surrendering.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjohnstone

VulchR

macrumors 68020
Jun 8, 2009
2,329
10,254
Scotland
The thing is, I do not believe that we should allow a situation in which the US is threatened by Nukes from NK. And, by the 'US", I include our Pacific territories and protectorates, Hawaii, and Alaska. These places will come under threat before California etc. Likewise, I do not think we should allow a situation in which our allies are threatened. Thus, I do not enjoy the idea of WWIII starting this weekend, but I think at some point we have to communicate to NK that, one way or another, they will not be allowed to developed nuclear-tipped missiles. It seems like the PRC have understood this message, so hopefully they'll finally pull their finger out and leash their NK dog.