Thread: Korean conflict? KJU's days numbered?

Originally Posted by birding

The only way to remove the threat of NK is to remove the threat to NK.

What a pile of pussy-arsed cobblers. Some fat arsed tin pot dictator wants to start rocking the boat and threatening neighbours with nukes, which should be getting phased out not phased in, needs his arse kicked and then his head on a spike for the world to see.

Originally Posted by birding

No point in taking out fat boy either for he is only a figure head

The point is to make an example of the fat-arsed clown to other potential trouble makers.

Originally Posted by Looper

The point is to make an example of the fat-arsed clown

you'll need to be more specific:

Originally Posted by Looper

tin pot dictator wants to start rocking the boat and threatening neighbours with nukes, which should be getting phased out not phased in, needs his arse kicked and then his head on a spike for the world to see.

so how, exactly, does that happen?

Good question Ray. And one that I am also having a bit of trouble deciding.

The B-2 spirit would obviously be the safe choice.



However the legendary B-52 is due a 65th birthday outing so that would be kind of nice.



But, you know, I just can't seem to go past the gloriously deafening supersonic B1-B Lancer

Originally posted by a thick person called CP'Strategic Strike' has nothing to do with "nuclear" in any way.

Dear CP
You are clearly not equipped with even basic tactical, theatre or strategic understanding of military terminology. You cannot expect anyone to take your comments seriously, when you are so poorly educated in such matters.

A strategic nuclear weapon refers to a nuclear weapon which is designed to be used on targets often in settled territory far from the battlefield as part of a strategic plan, such as military bases, military command centers, arms industries, transportation, economic, and energy infrastructure, and heavily populated areas such as cities and towns, many which often contains such targets. It is contrast to a tactical (or theatre) nuclear weapon, which is designed for use in battle, as part of an attack with and often in close proximity to friendly conventional forces possibly on contested friendly territory.

[QUOTE=chassamui;3578756]

Originally posted by a thick person called CP'Strategic Strike' has nothing to do with "nuclear" in any way.

Dear CP
You are clearly not equipped with even basic tactical, theatre or strategic understanding of military terminology. You cannot expect anyone to take your comments seriously, when you are so poorly educated in such matters.

A strategic nuclear weapon refers to a nuclear weapon which is designed to be used on targets often in settled territory far from the battlefield as part of a strategic plan, such as military bases

Once again, we are derailed by minutiae.

I googled "strategic strike" when you first inferred my comment incorrectly.

A "strategic strike," which I stated is not the same as a strategic "nuclear" weapon or strategic "nuclear" strike.

See definition below:

Strategic strike is the application of kinetic (i.e., physically destructive) and nonkinetic (e.g., information operations deep into enemy territory, affecting military forces in the homeland, or population, industry, and infrastructure. A wide means of methods can be used, from nuclear weapons to sabotage by a hand tool wielded by a special operator.

The formal US definition is generic: "An attack to damage or destroy an objective or a capability".[1] By targeting beyond the forward edge of the battle area, strike provided the ability to weaken an enemy’s capacity to fight by degrading that enemy’s command and control, key production facilities, infrastructure, logistic support capability and, ultimately, combat effectiveness.[2] It can be directed at ground or maritime targets.

The term "strike" long was euphemistic for the use nuclear weapons, but, especially since the development of precision guided munitions, are not necessarily nuclear attacks. Strikes may use combinations of aircraft and missiles. The aircraft may drop free-falling bombs, perhaps with guidance, or launch missiles. Missiles can also be launched from ground and sea platforms, often to help clear defenses that could interfere with strike aircraft. Air, sea, and land based electronic warfare assets can help the strikers penetrate.

Strategic strike - encyclopedia article - Citizendium

I shall note that by not stating "nuclear" it should be assumed - no, known - that a non-nuclear strike was stated. As such.

I am not of Intell background but I presume a strike on nukes can be made with non nukes.

I ain't no military expert.

Back to my point before this derailment. I think that the US will attack North Korea withing 3 1/2 years.

Let's just call it an "attack."

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

I shall note that by not stating "nuclear" it should be assumed - no, known - that a non-nuclear strike was stated. As such.

Again your assumptions and lack of clarity show your weak understanding. In any conflict, clarity is absolutely essential. There is no place for assumptions such as yours.

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

I am not of Intell background but I presume a strike on nukes can be made with non nukes.

It is clear that you have no intelligence background of any kind.

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

I ain't no military expert.

Really?

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

Back to my point before this derailment. I think that the US will attack North Korea withing 3 1/2 years.

Let's just call it an "attack."

If there was indeed a derailment, it was caused by your lack of clarity and a zero based military and intelligence expertise.

The US will not use any nuclear or conventional weapons against North Korea. Have you learned nothing from this thread?

The implications of any such attack are too costly to imagine, not just in financial terms but in loss of life and negative gains for all concerned.

The technology, conventional or otherwise, exists today that would enable the US to hit Kims lapel badge from 200 kms away with zero collateral damage.
Why do you think that option has not been used? Serious question for CP as most others already know and understand why.

Originally Posted by Norton

The US, the UN and others have no cards at all. Kim Jong-un like his father is dedicated to becoming a nuclear power and they will in spite of decades of sanctions, bluster and threats.

A surgical military strike by the US would have no effect in detering NKs march to attain it's nuc goals but rather would accelerate it by proving Kim's claim they must have nucs to defend against US aggression.

Get over it. NK is going to achieve it's goal. Rather than threaten, best to focus on moving toward some level of unification or easing of tensions on the Korean peninsula

The US has the ultimate deterrent, but is loath to use it because the implications.
Nothing for me to 'get over', I never said that NK would not achieve it's goal.
Reunification is also one of Kms aims, under his leadership.

Originally Posted by chassamui

to becoming a nuclear power

A thief shouts, catch the thief...

Originally Posted by chassamui

The US will not use any nuclear or conventional weapons against North Korea.

That is a fact. NK can turn Seoul into glass in minutes turning the day dark in a rain of rockets, missiles and artillery shells. The US would never put all those lives at risk. As has previously been stated NK will simply have nukes.

Originally Posted by chassamui

The US has the ultimate deterrent

So does Russia, China and several others that would retaliate in kind if NK used nuks anywhere.

Originally Posted by chassamui

Nothing for me to 'get over

Not aimed at you. Aimed at world leaders and the media in general. NK is piss on the floor country and even with nuks does not and never will be as big a threat to the US as other much larger nuclear powers.

It would seem we do have some on here who understand, with some obvious exceptions.

If there were even a non nuk strike on a nuke facility what would happen ? Remember Fukushima, Chernobyl, yep thats what happens when a nuke facility is breached, and a radiation cloud and if the wind is in the right direction where could it go the South, China Russia, Japan.

Unfortunately there are still some loonies who dont care how much death and destruction they bring to others as long as its not then, a snip from :

https://www.stripes.com/news/pacific...5#.WV3T0ISGPIV

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said this week that he supported striking North Korea to stop it from developing the capability to reach the United States with a missile — even if that came at a huge cost for the region. "It would be terrible, but the war would be over [in South Korea], it wouldn't be here," Graham said in an interview with NBC.

These people have learned nothing from the disasters and loss of life the US has caused around the world since the Korean War but North Korea has and they understand they must have a strong defense or they will be next.

the US ambassador to the UN just told that body that the US is prepared to use force against north korea to stop its nuclear missile program.


FFS.

Live: US prepared to use military force against North Korea, says ambassador to the UN

Originally Posted by Klondyke

Originally Posted by chassamui

to becoming a nuclear power

A thief shouts, catch the thief...

Posted by Norths, not me.

Originally Posted by raycarey

the US ambassador to the UN just told that body that the US is prepared to use force against north korea to stop its nuclear missile program.

Sabre rattling. Kim will not bend over.

I think sooner or later KJU is going to be killed by his own people, just my thoughts. 555

If the Chinese do not use their significant regional influence to solve the long overdue NK problem and continue to use the issue as cynical political leverage then they do not deserve any concessions over their illegal SCS islands which should be blockaded until they start cooperating.

I have read all of the comments above.

I stand alone, or in a minority.


I do think the US will launch a strike against NK withing the next 3 and 1/2 years.

^Will you leave the forum never to return at Christmas 2021 if these things do not come to pass milkman?

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

I have read all of the comments above.

And understood none of them. Even your own.

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

I stand alone, or in a minority.

Alone. A minority of one.

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

I do think the US will launch a strike against NK withing the next 3 and 1/2 years.

Your thinking is simply ignorant and wrong headed.

Originally Posted by Looper

^Will you leave the forum never to return at Christmas 2021 if these things do not come to pass milkman?

Will YOU leave the forum never to return if things DO come to pass Looper?