Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

All Things North Korea Thread


@SkinsGoldPants
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, nonniey said:

Here is another bit of concerning news. North Korea has claimed it has fusion bombs (ie Hydrogen Bombs), that has been dismissed with the dismissals postulating that they have only boosted fission weapons. Now it is good that they don't have Hydrogen bombs but even boosted fission weapons is very bad news. The British detonated three boosted weapons in the 1950's  the largest explosion was 800kt and it thought they can reach the mgt range. 

 

The Hiroshima bomb was 20kt.

 

Most of our fusion weapons from what I've read are dialed down to less than a megaton (most in the 500kt range) so Kim may have weapons that match or exceed the explosive yields of our current inventory (Boosted weapons may be harder to maintain though).

 

We could make bigger bombs - Castle Bravo all the way back in 1954 was ~15 MT - but its much more effective to have many, smaller warheads that one big one.  After a certain yield point a nuke isn't going to leave anything living/functional/standing, so its a question of how big do you make the kill area.  Due to the inverse square law, the destructive potential of a cluster of smaller warheads is much more effective than one big one. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about the neutron bomb? The low blast, ultra-high radiation weapon that kills people but spares buildings. We never dropped one of those on anyone before. I say bring it back. I know a lot of people were against it in the 70s and 80s due to the horribly painful death and suffering that would be caused by the radiation. At the same time, most buildings were in favor of it so me thinks there's some room for discussion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DCSaints_fan said:

 

We could make bigger bombs - Castle Bravo all the way back in 1954 was ~15 MT - but its much more effective to have many, smaller warheads that one big one.  After a certain yield point a nuke isn't going to leave anything living/functional/standing, so its a question of how big do you make the kill area.  Due to the inverse square law, the destructive potential of a cluster of smaller warheads is much more effective than one big one. 

Yes I understand that I was just pointing out nKorea having boosted weapons is bad, really bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assumed Trump was going to get us all killed. But I assumed it would come after the midterms.

 

Actually, the countries that should be totally freaked out right now are South Korea, Japan, and China.

 

South Korea is going to lose its capital and several million people if this becomes any kind of hot war. Oh, and it may become a radioactive wasteland.

 

China is looking at a few million starving, radiated refugees and, you know, fallout.

 

Japan is within range of nearly anything NK currently has.

 

The way Trump has always done business is putting his partners and lenders in a position where they have as much if not more to lose than he does and then getting concessions from him. I'm not sure countries behave the same way banks do however.

Edited by Lombardi's_kid_brother
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

For all the talk of NK having no chance against the US in a serious war, I worry about the unknowns - for example, does Russia see this as a major chance to weaken/cripple the US and launch massive cyber attacks?  

 

I think Russia's end game here isn't an attack on the United States but reasserting themselves in Eastern Europe to re-establish their Soviet era influence. 

 

So if they can get the US bogged down in a messy Korea war, they're more able to make a further push into Ukraine and install puppets in other border counties. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

 

I think Russia's end game here isn't an attack on the United States but reasserting themselves in Eastern Europe to re-establish their Soviet era influence. 

 

So if they can get the US bogged down in a messy Korea war, they're more able to make a further push into Ukraine and install puppets in other border counties. 

True.  However, I'd think that fully removing the US as a sphere of influence would allow Russia even more leeway to carry out their goals.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Russia is doing everything it can to totally destabilize us and topple us while they've got a puppet in the white house and the support of a third of the American public.

The ****ers are winning the Cold War. 

Right now.

 

All of a sudden NKs capabilities literally rocket up from failed missile after failed missile to suddenly ICBMs and the quickly learned miniaturized warheads that apparently took everyone by surprise. According the news i saw yesterday, the US thought they were decades away from this.
Gee.. i  wonder..

 

~Bang

Edited by Bang
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, skinny21 said:

True.  However, I'd think that fully removing the US as a sphere of influence would allow Russia even more leeway to carry out their goals.  

It frankly would not surprise me if Putin tried to sneak in an invasion of an island somewhere while we're all focused on NK.  They can't overplay their hand, but Crimea 2.0 isn't out of the question.  Take a little chunk of Europe every time the US is busy elsewhere and soon you've reconstructed a lot of the USSR.

 

And Bang, I don't know what stock to put in it, but there was some skepticism by a few on twitter over the miniaturization report.  Something about it coming from the DIA which allegedly has a bad track record, and that NK is mostly a black box for our intel.

 

Everyone is still taking it very very seriously, of course, as they should.  But it sounds like it is possible (though I would not say probable) that the report could be off and they might not quite be there.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the US needs is for NK to back down.  The US dialing it back is not a win for us.  It's just the latest example that we've lost the will to use our power.  Russia **** on our elections, threatened us in Syria, and thumbed their nose at the west in Crimea.  US did virtually nothing.  NK promised all sorts of things and now wonders openly if Guam might make a nice target for nuclear missiles.  Syria crossed Obamas red line and he folded.  

 

Too bad we lack a leader with credibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Destino said:

What the US needs is for NK to back down.  The US dialing it back is not a win for us.  It's just the latest example that we've lost the will to use our power.  Russia **** on our elections, threatened us in Syria, and thumbed their nose at the west in Crimea.  US did virtually nothing.  NK promised all sorts of things and now wonders openly if Guam might make a nice target for nuclear missiles.  Syria crossed Obamas red line and he folded.  

 

Too bad we lack a leader with credibility.

 

I'm not upset with the U.S for being civil. There needs to be an adult in the room. But as soon as NK take it to another level, it would be time to show them who we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone wants a diplomatic solution, everyone sane anyway, but at the same time we know that diplomacy has not worked with North Korea for decades.  Realisticly we're hoping for a resolution we know won't work before anyone even sits down at the table.  So what does a win in this crisis look like?  Short and long term. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...