t down. As soon as the first one it targeted, not even shot, it would be a declaration of war and MAD kicks in. Game over, we're all dead.
What is this "one" thing??? Of course we would launch nukes against any co untry considered a nuclear threat that tries to take out our defense system s. You seem to be wanting to inch up on the problem by talking about attac king "one" satellite. Taking out one of hundreds or thousands of satellite s might not trigger an all out nuclear attack. Any response must be in pro portion to the threat.
We aren't madmen.
be targeting scud missiles in the dessert or trying to find troops in the woods.
What are you talking about? What is the point of this inch by inch thing?? ?
Did someone behind you say, "Niagra Falls"?
How does this hypothetical situation relate to the discussion?
--
Rick C.
++-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
e a relatively small number of nuclear weapons landing on key areas that de vastate a country. They can be launched three ways, one of which is not ve ry easy to prevent. Putin's nuclear rocket adds one more which may or may not be easy to shoot down.
r and the attacker has better be ready to stop how many thousands of war he ads?
ion
Saddam miscalculated. He thought he could play a shell game of making us think (along with anyone else who mattered) he actually had WMD and that wo uld keep him safe. He didn't and we didn't care enough that it was protect ion for him.
ear having WMD was not enough to stop us from destroying him and that he wa sn't anywhere near having WMDs of any consequence to us.
ROFL. It;s the perfect example! It's a world leader behaving irrationally . Saddam knew there were 300K coalition troops, that were going to invade if he did not comply. He knew he was beaten badly before, totally humiliated in a war that lasted only hours. Yet he chose destruction, to likely die himself, instead of letting UN inspectors look for WMDs that he didn't have .
And I note you didn't answer the simple question. You stated that some hos tile country just targeting a satellite, would result in a full nuclear response . I posed a simple example of China targeting a US satellite. Would you go nuclear over that? Hello?
past our nuclear defenses and at the same time not caring about MAD and his personal well being is just prima facie absurd.
Say what? That's incredibly stupid. NK has demonstrated both nukes and ICMBs! Japan intelligence just stated that they believe it's likely that NK has miniaturized nukes. KJU is a pathological madman, who's killed uncles, his own brother, using horrific means. He;s presiding over genocid e, a country of 25 mil that's starving. Hello?
do with SDI or anti-missile weapons.
Sure, that threat exists too, but you're obviously in total denial with NK.
shot down. As soon as the first one it targeted, not even shot, it would be a declaration of war and MAD kicks in. Game over, we're all dead.
ause
nch
on..
As opposed to Trader4, who actually is stupid, and doesn't know how to argu e
f our satellites, we would not launch nuclear weapons in response.
That means that I'm sane, and don't imagine that I can second guess a trick y strategic question. Trader4 is much more confident of his strategic insig hts.
ance their way. You'd have to react, and react in way that would tip the ba lance back your way by a significantly greater amount. Inaction wouldn't be an option.
Technically speaking, painting a satellite with a radar beam would be "targ etting" it. That's not something guaranteed to provoke a response, nor inte resting enough provoke any kind of discussion. You have to make it the sate llite a target of an at least potentially destructive weapon to provoke a r esponse.
g.
Doing nothing opens you up to the salami strategy, where each stolen slice is too small to react to, but you end up with no salami.
on't be targeting scud missiles in the dessert or trying to find troops in the woods.
n,
s
.
ce. If you want to do it, apply for a job in that area - but I wouldn't lik e your chances.
Tough.
s, but you're here shooting your fool mouth off.
I'm not shooting my mouth off, but pointing out that the decisions are a li ttle more complicated than you seem to be able to appreciate.
Trader4 thinks that everybody else is just as stupid as he is. Somewhere be tween 95% and 99% of them aren't.
. Saddam miscalculated. He thought he could play a shell game of making u s think (along with anyone else who mattered) he actually had WMD and that would keep him safe. He didn't and we didn't care enough that it was prote ction for him.
clear having WMD was not enough to stop us from destroying him and that he wasn't anywhere near having WMDs of any consequence to us.
ly.
f
There weren't at that stage. The build up happened after he'd agreed to let the inspectors back in.
formatting link
ve.
Look at the history.
formatting link
41
was passed on the 8th November 2002.Iraq agreed to the Resolution on 13 Nov ember. Weapons inspectors returned on 27 November. Irak wasn't as helpful a s it might have been, but it became clear they they didn't have any weapons of mass destruction or any active plans to develop any.
Dubbya reacted by starting a publicity campaign in the US trying to link Sa ddam to 9/11 which was total and obvious nonsense, but perceived to be nece ssary because the "weapons of mass destruction" issue had been defused.
ns. Saddam miscalculated. He thought he could play a shell game of making us think (along with anyone else who mattered) he actually had WMD and tha t would keep him safe. He didn't and we didn't care enough that it was pro tection for him.
s clear having WMD was not enough to stop us from destroying him and that h e wasn't anywhere near having WMDs of any consequence to us.
ally.
if
et the inspectors back in.
More lies and BS. The "buildup" by the coalition, was because Iraq was still not fully cooperating with the UN weapons inspectors. The UN had given Iraq a final opportunity to fully comply and with the 300K troops staged, ready to launch the war if Iraq did not comply, Saddam still refuse d to comply. Hans Blix said so in his final report to the UN, just days before the war. And only a stupid troll would argue that what Saddam did wasn't stupid and totally irrational. He didn't have WMDs, all he had to do was comply. Instead he chose death and destruction. Which was precisely my point, stupid. That history, including that very recent example, shows that you can't rely on MAD, because there are leaders that come to power that are truly irrational and nuts. KJU may be the next one. Got it now? Of course not, no hope for you.
ions. Saddam miscalculated. He thought he could play a shell game of maki ng us think (along with anyone else who mattered) he actually had WMD and t hat would keep him safe. He didn't and we didn't care enough that it was p rotection for him.
was clear having WMD was not enough to stop us from destroying him and that he wasn't anywhere near having WMDs of any consequence to us.
onally. Saddam knew there were 300K coalition troops, that were going to in vade if he did not comply.
let the inspectors back in.
Trader4 snips the links I posted
formatting link
formatting link
41
They don't fit what Trader4 wants to claim, so he snips them and reiterates his own deluded version of what he thinks happens.
If he were less stupid, I could accuse him of lying, but he's merely delude d.
be a relatively small number of nuclear weapons landing on key areas that devastate a country. They can be launched three ways, one of which is not very easy to prevent. Putin's nuclear rocket adds one more which may or ma y not be easy to shoot down.
war and the attacker has better be ready to stop how many thousands of war heads?
en
r
se
ction
. Saddam miscalculated. He thought he could play a shell game of making u s think (along with anyone else who mattered) he actually had WMD and that would keep him safe. He didn't and we didn't care enough that it was prote ction for him.
clear having WMD was not enough to stop us from destroying him and that he wasn't anywhere near having WMDs of any consequence to us.
ly.
f
d
ve.
No, he didn't believe the US would do that. Yet he never shot down one of our satellites. So it doesn't really matter what he did or didn't think.
ostile
se.
Yes, I did respond to your question.
t past our nuclear defenses and at the same time not caring about MAD and h is personal well being is just prima facie absurd.
ide,
Why do you enter conversations you know apparently nothing about. We have defensive capabilities for the crappy NK missiles. Did you actually read w hat I wrote???
o do with SDI or anti-missile weapons.
Denial of what exactly? Being able to launch a few nukes and having them g et past defensive weapons are two different things. We are not at risk fro m NK. South Korea might be. I don't know how rapidly out defenses can tak e their missiles out. Hopefully before they even reach the NK border.
--
Rick C.
++-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Bill Sloman wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
Also, simply placing it on a primary military asset target list is also "targetting it".
There is a difference between targetting something one wishes to fire on at the current moment, and deciding that an object or asset is to be a target in the event of aggressions that may take place.
Whoey Louie wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
Oh we most certainly DO know exactly what they have and evrything they are developing.
No. They fired the booster, then downed it. There has been no "successful" test of an ICBM in many decades because NO NATION would allow it and the test REQUIRES it. All these dirty, rule breaking players can do is test the boster launch, then they have to down it. Even then we see nearby nations protesting their behavior.
It is getting to the time where North Korea will be told they will be kicked out of the UN unless they comply with the rules they said they would comply with when we let them into it.
I think there may be a submarine that gets destroyed while it is still in drydock, and we may even see some launchers and launch sites get big time butt hurts, and we might see some facilities in Iran get squashed like the filthy bugs they are as well.
We are in for a ride, and maybe then you will finally see that we are indeed still superior.
The poker hand is about to be called on these bad players, and their shit is weak in the world stage.
Whoey Louie wrote in news:03ecefae-3e24-4f51- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
much
years
Actually YOU know nothing about it. North Korea has been utterly techno-stupid for decades! What they do now they are getting handheld in, and they are not steadily developing ANY prototypes, you stupid f*ck. Even their submarine is a russian design. They are trying out smuggled in systems from Russia, their original helper outer. They also have staff on hand to help them. You must be blind to not see those mobile launch platform roots. They have ZERO jets. Their MLRS is from 1947.
Did you ever even look at some of the war games videos that take place at the DMZ?
We are vastly superior to them.
5 orbital launch attempts just to try to put up a satellite using '60s russian technnology. If they ever got it up there, do you really think it is actually still up there?
We are talking about a nation that cannot see that failing to keep your people fed is a national failure. That isn't about sanctions, that is about stupid stubborn communist governance. Communism fails. This is but one proof.
Sure we do, ROFL. Just like we knew Saddam had WMDs and knew the USSR was on the verge of collapse before it actually happened. And we had a whole lot more assets on those countries as opposed to the hermit kingdom.
WRong, always wrong.
ROFL. What "no nation would allow it"? What does that even mean? NK doesn't give a rat;s ass about what any country, the UN, etc says. And of course they tested an ICBM:
formatting link
"North Korea tested its first intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) nam ed Hwasong-14 on July 4.[45][46] It launched from the Panghyon Aircraft Fac tory 8 km southeast of Panghyon Airport.[47] It was aimed straight up at a lofted trajectory and reached more than 2,500 km into space.[48] It landed
37 minutes later,[49] more than 930 km from its launch site,[50] into Japan 's exclusive economic zone.[51] Aiming long, the missile would have travele d 7,000?8,000 km or more, reaching Alaska, Hawaii, and maybe Seattl e.[49][52][53][54][55] Its operational range would be farther, bringing a 5
00 kg payload to targets in most of the contiguous United States 9,700 km a way."
All these dirty, rule breaking
Unbelievably stupid, even for you. First you say they are 'dirty rule breakers", then you say they have to down it? Now you're contradicting yourself in the same sentence.
ROFL. Stupid, even for you. NK has been thumbing their noses at the UN for decades. They have refused to comply with resolution after resolution, including ones that BAN MISSILE TESTS. And obviously a country that's already isolated, trade embargoed, etc, doesn't give a rat's ass about being kicked out of the UN.
Yeah, dream on. Even Trump isn't that stupid. There never really was a time where we could have done that, unless you're willing to risk another Korean War. With all the artillery and rockets that NK has aimed at Seoul, no one is going to risk it, which of course is why no action was taken BEFORE NK had nuclear weapons. No one is going to do it now that they have them, that's for sure. Unless Trump has gone totally nuts, he'd need the approval of SK for any strike and he's not going to get that.
What poker hand is going to be called? Trump says KJU is his buddy, that he trusts him, that he's sure he will make the right decisions and that it's perfectly fine for KJU to be testing missiles right now that can carry nuclear warheads to SK. Which of course NK is doing.
Wrong, always wrong, but boy this is very wrong, even for you.
"North Korea has a military nuclear weapons program[6] and, as of early 201
9, is estimated to have an arsenal of approximately 20?30 nuclear w eapons and sufficient fissile material for an additional 30?60 nucl ear weapons."
First you claim we know exactly what NK has, then you deny what we do know and can estimate.
and they have NO boosters capable of
Wrong, always wrong.
formatting link
"Missiles that can reach the US
Throughout 2017, North Korea tested several missiles demonstrating the rapi d advances of its military technology.
The Hwasong-12 was thought to be able to reach as far as 4,500km (2,800 mil es), putting US military bases on the Pacific island of Guam well within st riking distance.
Later, the Hwasong-14 demonstrated even greater potential with some studies suggesting it could travel as far as 10,000km if fired on a maximum trajec tory.
This would have given Pyongyang its first truly intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), capable of reaching New York.
Eventually, the Hwasong-15 was tested, peaking at an estimated altitude of
4,500km - 10 times higher than the International Space Station.
If fired on a more conventional "flatter" trajectory, the missile could hav e a maximum range of some 13,000km, putting all of the continental US in ra nge."
Whoey Louie wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
Nice try, dumbfuck.
The very citation you give does not read the way YOU wrote it. Nice try, punk.
It states O to 20 to 30.
I lean toward ZERO number being more correct.
As far as the rockets go, just putting an NK moniker on old russian booster tech is pretty lame and the US most certain does have a handle on what they have. Trump's dismissal is proof that he does sometimes listen to his military underlings. The dopey bastard just does not know how to keep his retarded mouth shut.
Yes, so stupid that they've developed working, tested nuclear bombs, ICBMs and shorter range missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. That's obviously cause for great concern. They successfully tested many of those new short range missiles this month. Trump says that's A-OK, no problemo.
What they do now they are getting
It doesn't matter exactly how they got there, the fact is that they now have nuclear weapons and very likely the ability to deliver them, eg those missiles with ranges of hundreds of miles that they have been testing this month.
Irrelevant of course.
No shit Sherlock. That doesn't mean that they can't launch a missile with a nuke to hit most targets in SK, including the US troops. Or that they don't have ICBMS that can reach the US. We can have
4,000, they can have 10. As Clint Eastwood said, "how lucky do you feel"? Like I tried to explain to Rick, MAD only works when the other party is also rational and even then it may not work. Are you going to tell us that you are sure KJU is rational?
Why don't you tell us, you claim to know so much.
Irrelevant, of course. We now have a failed communist state with nuclear weapons and ICBMs headed by a mercurial despot who has presided over genocide. Russia's economy was a failure too, but they sure were capable of producing nukes that threatened the US. NK is now entering that league and unfortunately we're going to have to live with it. There was good reason to believe that the Russians were mostly rational. Are you sure about KJU?
On August 8, 2017, the Washington Post reported recent analysis completed t he previous month by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency which concluded t hat North Korea had successfully produced a miniaturized nuclear warhead th at can fit in missiles and could have up to 60 nuclear warheads in its inve ntory.[155] Siegfried S. Hecker
On August 7, 2017, Siegfried S. Hecker, former director of the Los Alamos N ational Laboratory who has visited North Korea nuclear facilities many time s on behalf of the U.S., estimated that North Korea's stockpile of plutoniu m and highly enriched uranium was probably sufficient for 20 to 25 nuclear weapons. He assessed that North Korea had developed a miniaturized warhead suitable for medium-range missiles, but would need further tests and develo pment to produce a smaller and more robust warhead suitable for an intercon tinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and re-entry into the atmosphere. He cons idered the warhead as the least developed part of North Korea's plans for a n ICBM.[156][157] Institute for Science and International Security
For 2013, the Institute for Science and International Security gave a mid-r ange estimate of 12 to 27 "nuclear weapon equivalents", including plutonium and uranium stockpiles. By 2016, North Korea was projected to have 14 to 4
8 nuclear weapon equivalents.[158] The estimate was dropped to 13 to 30 nuc lear weapon equivalents in 2017, but was increased to as much as 60 equival ents later in August of the same year.[159] (For uranium weapons, each weap on is assumed to contain 20 kilograms of weapons-grade uranium.)[160] FAS
As of 2012, the Federation of American Scientists estimated North Korea had fewer than 10 plutonium warheads.[161] SIPRI
As of January 2013, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute es timated North Korea had 6 to 8 warheads.[162] Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
As of January 8, 2018, Hans M. Kristensen and Robert S. Norris of the Feder ation of American Scientists published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scient ists that they "cautiously estimate that North Korea may have produced enou gh fissile material to build between 30 and 60 nuclear weapons, and that it might possibly have assembled 10 to 20.".[163]
Well, why should anyone doubt your qualification to give a number....
Sure it's based on Russian technology, but Russia has had ICBMs that were reasonably reliable and capable of reaching the US for more than half a century. Old does not mean it does not work. And they will only keep advancing. And that's just the ICBM component they successfully tested new missiles with a range of hundreds of miles this month. Ones that are capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and that could reach most SK cities and the US troops.
Whoey Louie wrote in news:47af4cf5-ecf9-4a96- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
No, they can't dipshit.
We have the most advanced missile defense in the world right there.
The biggest defense, however, which you are stupid about is that if they ever tried to do any such thing, they would be obliterated and they know it. They would be on their knees in hours... literally. If there were any of them left.
SK will tear them a new asshole the next time they try anything stupid.
It is bad enough that we did not resolve it way back when instead if this shit DMZ and y'all keep building up armies crap.
Whoey Louie wrote in news:47a2b1e4-15c0-4615- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
Just look at the reference, idiot. It is right there on the wiki page. Your quotes even carried the reference numbers. Click on the reference and find that the actual data states 0 to 20 - 30.
Meaning the only one they may ever have is the one they just detonated, taking them back to zero.
One that's no where near 100%, and that's with tests where we know what's coming, when, where, etc. And it doesn't cover all of SK, stupid. NK could even put a nuke on a sub, deliver it to Busan or Inchon.
Perhaps you missed the lengthy discussion about that? As I tried to explain to Rick, nuclear deterrence only works if both parties are rational, and even then it has serious issues, it isn't perfect. Eventually it will fail when some irrational leader comes to power. History has a long list of them. Is KJU one? I guess not, Rick says he's rational and there are no worries. I say we need to assume he's not and make plans based on that.
Did they do that when NK torpedoed and sank their warship, killing 50? Did they do that when NK shelled their island, killing their troops?
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.