Level II: North Korea vows nuclear response to U.S.-Seoul drills

[Amputate Your Head]

North Korea vows nuclear response to U.S.-Seoul drills - Jul 2010
Pyongyang says military games are a provocation that cannot be ignored


[LINKHOTNESS]
The U.S. Navy's Aegis destroyer USS John S. McCain (DDG-56), arrives for joint U.S.-South Korean military exercises at Donghae Harbor, South Korea, on Saturday.

SEOUL ? North Korea warned Saturday that it will respond with "powerful nuclear deterrence" to joint U.S. and South Korean military exercises poised to begin this weekend, saying the drills amount to a provocation that cannot be ignored. North Korea routinely threatens war when South Korea and the U.S. hold joint military drills, which Pyongyang sees as a rehearsal for an attack on the North. The latest threat comes amid increased tensions on the peninsula over the deadly sinking of a South Korean warship that Seoul and Washington blame on Pyongyang.

The allies' defense chiefs announced earlier in the week they would stage the drills to send a clear message to North Korea to stop its "aggressive" behavior. Forty-six South Korean sailors were killed in the March sinking of the Cheonan, considered the worst military attack on the South since the 1950-53 Korean War. North Korea vehemently denies any involvement and says any punishment would trigger war.

Games set for Sunday
The nuclear-powered USS George Washington supercarrier is already docked in the southern port of Busan for the military games set to begin Sunday. In addition, the U.S. keeps 28,500 troops in South Korea to deter against aggression, a presence that Pyongyang cites as a key reason behind its drive to build nuclear weapons.

"The more desperately the U.S. imperialists brandish their nukes and the more zealously their lackeys follow them, the more rapidly the (North's) nuclear deterrence will be bolstered up along the orbit of self-defense and the more remote the prospect for the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula will be become," the commission statement said.

"We are ready for both dialogue and war," - NK

LINK

Well, I guess we'll see if NK actually intends to back up their big talk or if it's just standard procedure posturing.

[sortie]

I doubt NK would use any nukes but I'm also concerned that my doubt may be a
symptom of arrogance in that my internal thought could be :
"they wouldn't dare, we'll destroy them".

I also may be thinking "NK knows we are a peaceful nation and will not attack them".

Not a realistic picture for a country currently involved in 2 wars.

They probably won't do anything, but it's clear that our ability to underestimate
them is extremely high also.

[Vendzilla]

Glad that carrier is NOT the one my daughter is on, one of the things I hated about being in the Navy during the cold war was shit like this, one nuke can wipe out a fleet, the title wave would destroy a lot, soviet subs carried nuke torpedos, which if you shot one, you yourself were fucked, you couldn't get out of the way of your own attack

[Martin]

It's just more posturing.

[theking]

Originally Posted by theking

Since the truce was signed in 1953...I do not think that a year has gone by without North Korea making some kind of threat either to the U.S. or South Korea. I also think that a combined military exercise has been held almost every year...if not every year...since 1953.

Originally posted in your other thread about this subject.

[CDSmith]

"This time I mean burizonizz"

[Sly]

Shit or get off the pot.

[L-Pink]

"Can I push the button" !!! "Can I push the button" !!!



.

[marketsmart]

the worst thing any country could do is first nuclear strike against US..

the US has been waiting many years to show off its nuclear capabilities..

most people are unaware of this, but one of the biggest reasons both the US and Russia agreed to reduce the total amount of nuclear warheads so easily was because the warheads are thousands of times more powerful than before/during the cold war..



.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by marketsmart

the worst thing any country could do is first nuclear strike against US..

the US has been waiting many years to show off its nuclear capabilities..

most people are unaware of this, but one of the biggest reasons both the US and Russia agreed to reduce the total amount of nuclear warheads so easily was because the warheads are thousands of times more powerful than before/during the cold war..



.

I think the pakis will be the first to fire a nuke off

[_Richard_]

gotta feeling there has been a power change in NKorea

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Glad that carrier is NOT the one my daughter is on, one of the things I hated about being in the Navy during the cold war was shit like this, one nuke can wipe out a fleet, the title wave would destroy a lot, soviet subs carried nuke torpedos, which if you shot one, you yourself were fucked, you couldn't get out of the way of your own attack

with sunfire missiles they wouldn't need strategic nukes

[seeandsee]

Originally Posted by CDSmith

"This time I mean burizonizz"

NK fucking dont need that, they will be blast from earth

[crazytrini85]

NK would go out in a blaze of glory. Maybe thats how they want it.

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

with sunfire missiles they wouldn't need strategic nukes

Sunfire missles can probably be shot down, nukes just have to detonate close

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Sunfire missles can probably be shot down, nukes just have to detonate close

those missiles are priced in the thousands.. if we can barely shoot one, we can't shoot 3+

nuclear warheads have very large consequences that out-way losing a war.. i am using the korean war as precedent.

[theking]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

those missiles are priced in the thousands.. if we can barely shoot one, we can't shoot 3+

nuclear warheads have very large consequences that out-way losing a war.. i am using the korean war as precedent.

A carrier armada can protect itself against incoming missiles...would some damage be done...yes. Can they take out the armada...no...and any nukes they have are not very powerful...and probably could not take out the armada...providing they could even detonate one close to the armada. Would there be exposure to radiation...yes.

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

those missiles are priced in the thousands.. if we can barely shoot one, we can't shoot 3+

nuclear warheads have very large consequences that out-way losing a war.. i am using the korean war as precedent.

Here's my daughters ship, I took this pick last october, I got a tour of it and I know they are very safe from Korean missles.
Yeah they can launch a bunch of missles, but soon after the launcher goes "POOF!"

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by theking

A carrier armada can protect itself against incoming missiles...would some damage be done...yes. Can they take out the armada...no...and any nukes they have are not very powerful...and probably could not take out the armada...providing they could even detonate one close to the armada. Would there be exposure to radiation...yes.

You're correct, a carrier group acts as one defensive unit, all the weapons are tied into one battle plan, so that if multiple missiles are coming, all the ships get their assigned targets, it's a very impressive set up.

[CDSmith]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

You're correct, a carrier group acts as one defensive unit, all the weapons are tied into one battle plan, so that if multiple missiles are coming, all the ships get their assigned targets, it's a very impressive set up.

Not only that but I believe they can also simultaneously pinpoint the point of origin and launch a response within seconds to take out the site or sites the attacking missiles were fired from.

Plus, I'd hazard a guess that a flight of tomahawks armed with tactical nukes would in a very short periiod of time render the entire country of N Korea inoperable, if it came to that of course. USA doesn't tend to sit around in front of the media yapping and posturing and threatening about how they're going to use nukes, they have them as an absolute last resort response. Only shithole countries like N Korea, run by dictators and are stuck in their 5000 year old rut of being ruled as such, use such pathetic tactics to threaten peace in the world.

Of course it never occurs to them that such war games wouldn't be happening if they weren't continually making threats.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Here's my daughters ship, I took this pick last october, I got a tour of it and I know they are very safe from Korean missles.
Yeah they can launch a bunch of missles, but soon after the launcher goes "POOF!"

you should read up on what i'm talking about, it's the reason iran etc hasn't been attacked yet

[theking]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

you should read up on what i'm talking about, it's the reason iran etc hasn't been attacked yet

He has and I have...and no that is not the reason Iran has not been attacked or any part of the reasons. It is you that needs to educate yourself...about a subject you apparently have very little knowledge of.

[theking]

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Not only that but I believe they can also simultaneously pinpoint the point of origin and launch a response within seconds to take out the site or sites the attacking missiles were fired from.

Plus, I'd hazard a guess that a flight of tomahawks armed with tactical nukes would in a very short periiod of time render the entire country of N Korea inoperable, if it came to that of course. USA doesn't tend to sit around in front of the media yapping and posturing and threatening about how they're going to use nukes, they have them as an absolute last resort response. Only shithole countries like N Korea, run by dictators and are stuck in their 5000 year old rut of being ruled as such, use such pathetic tactics to threaten peace in the world.

Of course it never occurs to them that such war games wouldn't be happening if they weren't continually making threats.

you are correct...within seconds the location of the launch site is identified...and this technology also identifies the firing position of incoming artillery rounds...that is how sophisticated the technology is.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

you should read up on what i'm talking about, it's the reason iran etc hasn't been attacked yet

I'm sorry. Are you suggesting the only reason we have not attacked Iran is due to weapons technology? Or did you mean something else?

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by theking

He has and I have...and no that is not the reason Iran has not been attacked or any part of the reasons. It is you that needs to educate yourself...about a subject you apparently have very little knowledge of.

so you know the dangers of the c-802 to our navies then? would you care to tell me the last time this weapon was thought to be used, and if it was or wasn't successful?

maybe you know the cost of this missile and the fact it can be used for conventional, biological, and nuclear warheads, and goes mach 2.9 making any anti-missile system pretty much useless

keep in mind, it costs 60k per missile compared to our costs for cruise missiles.. something like 10x the amount

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by baddog

I'm sorry. Are you suggesting the only reason we have not attacked Iran is due to weapons technology? Or did you mean something else?

not sure how much you have read about this, but any naval attack from the persian gulf is going to go down bad.. the iranians have a 'official' amount of 60 of these missiles, but i have heard rumours of 200+ with more being mass produced

they have been buying weapons and preparing for a war with us since the 88s when one of your cruisers illegal went into their waters and shot down a passenger jet

[baddog]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

not sure how much you have read about this, but any naval attack from the persian gulf is going to go down bad.. the iranians have a 'official' amount of 60 of these missiles, but i have heard rumours of 200+ with more being mass produced

they have been buying weapons and preparing for a war with us since the 88s when one of your cruisers illegal went into their waters and shot down a passenger jet

That was not my question. Do you think we have not attacked Iran because of weapons technology? Simple yes or no question.

[theking]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

not sure how much you have read about this, but any naval attack from the persian gulf is going to go down bad.. the iranians have a 'official' amount of 60 of these missiles, but i have heard rumours of 200+ with more being mass produced

they have been buying weapons and preparing for a war with us since the 88s when one of your cruisers illegal went into their waters and shot down a passenger jet

You clearly are uneducated about the capabilities of a carrier group. Do they have the capability to do damage...yes. Do they have the capability to take out a carrier group...no...in addition we have multiple carrier groups.

BTW...one carrier group has the capability to utterly destroy Iran.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by baddog

That was not my question. Do you think we have not attacked Iran because of weapons technology? Simple yes or no question.

not sure what you're driving at.. the tech for this missile isn't 'cutting edge' or anything

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by theking

You clearly are uneducated about the capabilities of a carrier group. Do they have the capability to do damage...yes. Do they have the capability to take out a carrier group...no...in addition we have multiple carrier groups.

BTW...one carrier group has the capability to utterly destroy Iran.

you mean the first layer of modified f-18 and f-14s, plus the carrier groups AEGIS missile defense?

what the c-802 has been designed specifically for?

one carrier group is worth, how much? you think one carrier group would be able to shoot down 10+ missiles going mach 2.9?

[baddog]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

not sure what you're driving at.. the tech for this missile isn't 'cutting edge' or anything

I scoff at the idea that you think we are itching to attack Iran.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by baddog

I scoff at the idea that you think we are itching to attack Iran.

hmm hey want some fun facts? guess where BP got it's big start

i'll give you a hint.. APOC

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by theking

You clearly are uneducated about the capabilities of a carrier group. Do they have the capability to do damage...yes. Do they have the capability to take out a carrier group...no...in addition we have multiple carrier groups.

BTW...one carrier group has the capability to utterly destroy Iran.

are you going to tell me now why they fly huge sorties around these carrier groups with planes specially designed to shoot down missiles? lol

[SallyRand]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

not sure how much you have read about this, but any naval attack from the persian gulf is going to go down bad.. the iranians have a 'official' amount of 60 of these missiles, but i have heard rumours of 200+ with more being mass produced

they have been buying weapons and preparing for a war with us since the 88s when one of your cruisers illegal went into their waters and shot down a passenger jet

MMMMMMMMMM.....You don't know much about the Iranian navy or air force, do you? Roughly 25% of the air force is operable at any given time and only around 40% of their ships. The Iranian navy is concentrated in about three bases, all of which would be taken out from the air along with the air force well before any sea-to-land operation began. Once Kargh Island is flattened, effectively there is no more Iranian Navy. The country has fewer than 100 airports, including mmilitary bases, all of which could be neutralized in a series of air strikes from Whiteman AFB.

An operation to completely eliminate the power of Iran to wage nuclear or conventional war would last less than three weeks and would not necessitate the landing of a single troop.

Sally.

[Deej]

Sword fight!!!

Not the gay kind either.... Juicy!

Duel to the death!

[theking]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

you mean the first layer of modified f-18 and f-14s, plus the carrier groups AEGIS missile defense?

what the c-802 has been designed specifically for?

one carrier group is worth, how much? you think one carrier group would be able to shoot down 10+ missiles going mach 2.9?

How many times must I repeat myself...do they have the capability to do damage...yes. Can they take out a carrier group...no. A carrier group is always escorted by subs. Subs armed with conventional cruise missiles as well as subs armed with missiles with multiple nuclear warheads on each missile...with the capability of virtually destroying most countries on this earth.

I will remind you yet again that the U.S. has multiple carrier groups...anyone of which has the capability of virtually destroying most countries on this earth.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by SallyRand

MMMMMMMMMM.....You don't know much about the Iranian navy or air force, do you? Roughly 25% of the air force is operable at any given time and only around 40% of their ships. The Iranian navy is concentrated in about three bases, all of which would be taken out from the air along with the air force well before any sea-to-land operation began. Once Kargh Island is flattened, effectively there is no more Iranian Navy. The country has fewer than 100 airports, including mmilitary bases, all of which could be neutralized in a series of air strikes from Whiteman AFB.

An operation to completely eliminate the power of Iran to wage nuclear or conventional war would last less than three weeks and would not necessitate the landing of a single troop.

Sally.

you know, i have heard this before.. IRAQ right

take a look at the scud missile problem during the iraq war.. they never really solved it, just buried the reports as the missiles were useless anyway. That isn't the case anymore.

also, i hear the nuclear armed iranian subs are working just fine

[theking]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

you know, i have heard this before.. IRAQ right

take a look at the scud missile problem during the iraq war.. they never really solved it, just buried the reports as the missiles were useless anyway. That isn't the case anymore.

also, i hear the nuclear armed iranian subs are working just fine

Iran does not have any nuclear armed subs...period.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by theking

How many times must I repeat myself...do they have the capability to do damage...yes. Can they take out a carrier group...no. A carrier group is always escorted by subs. Subs armed with conventional cruise missiles as well as subs armed with missiles with multiple nuclear warheads on each missile...with the capability of virtually destroying most countries on this earth.

sorry, i understand what you're trying to say, but it just isn't possible to annihilate an entire country. Even with multiple nuclear attacks, which would utterly destroy whatever reputation the states has left, it still would leave millions of pissed off moderate iranians who would never forget.

and lets create a hypothetical situation. lets say you're iranian, and you know for a fact any sort of confrontation with any of the very angry world powers directly would result in 'game over'

what would you do? would you develop a military that would meet anything punch for punch? or would you develop a military that would cause as much damage and heartache in as little time/cost as possible, while maintaining 'reputation' by not using anything non-conventional?

[Konkan]

NK always had balls to go after US. Soon or later they will face the biggest military force on the planet........we`ll see

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by theking

Iran does not have any nuclear armed subs...period.

err nuclear-powered, was typing fast

actually not sure about the iranian sub capability, but i know it's operational

[sortie]

Originally Posted by crazytrini85

NK would go out in a blaze of glory. Maybe thats how they want it.

I might think so too if it wasn't for the fact that we are losing 2 wars right now.

[Sly]

Originally Posted by Konkan

NK always had balls to go after US. Soon or later they will face the biggest military force on the planet........we`ll see

I don't really think it's balls. It's pretty simple. They are like the little kid on the playground that has a big friend that nobody wants to mess with. In this case, China. Nobody wants to fight with China, it doesn't make any sense at all for anyone to want to play with China. North Korea knows China has their back and they know that nobody wants to piss off China too much because the whole world needs China right now.

There is a tipping point though. I don't know what exactly it is, but at some point they are going to make China break and they will be sorry.

[sortie]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

are you going to tell me now why they fly huge sorties around these carrier groups with planes specially designed to shoot down missiles? lol

Don't put my name in this shit!

[SallyRand]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

you know, i have heard this before.. IRAQ right

take a look at the scud missile problem during the iraq war.. they never really solved it, just buried the reports as the missiles were useless anyway. That isn't the case anymore.

also, i hear the nuclear armed iranian subs are working just fine

Iran would not have to be invaded. With its ability to make war destroyed, it could do little but try to rebuild and subsequent strikes against those efforts would work quite well.

And I really don't care if the entire country were blasted to rubble as Iran is one of the most serious threats to the entire world that exists today.

"Stone Age" anyone?

The Iranian navy possesses NO nuclear-powered submarines. The Iranians have but THREE and possibly five Soviet-built Diesel-Electric attack subs, only one or two of which are operational at any given time.

Go here for the complete Iranian navy:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...iran/ships.htm

Taking out the operational Iranian navy would be like shooting ducks on a pond.

Sally.



Sally.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by SallyRand

Iran would not have to be invaded. With its ability to make war destroyed, it could do little but try to rebuild and subsequent strikes against those efforts would work quite well.

And I really don't care if the entire country were blasted to rubble as Iran is one of the most serious threats to the entire world that exists today.

"Stone Age" anyone?

The Iranian navy possesses NO nuclear-powered submarines. The Iranians have but THREE and possibly five Soviet-built Diesel-Electric attack subs, only one or two of which are operational at any given time.

Go here for the complete Iranian navy:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...iran/ships.htm

Taking out the operational Iranian navy would be like shooting ducks on a pond.

Sally.



Sally.

yea my mistake about the subs, but with the same story with the ships/air force, they don't need a big one for it to be fully effective, and doesn't matter to the strategy anyway

since you have brought up nuking people a few times, curious, if you know the reason why they want to attack Iran in the first place

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by sortie

Don't put my name in this shit!

hahaha my bad

[theking]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

sorry, i understand what you're trying to say, but it just isn't possible to annihilate an entire country. Even with multiple nuclear attacks, which would utterly destroy whatever reputation the states has left, it still would leave millions of pissed off moderate iranians who would never forget.

and lets create a hypothetical situation. lets say you're iranian, and you know for a fact any sort of confrontation with any of the very angry world powers directly would result in 'game over'

what would you do? would you develop a military that would meet anything punch for punch? or would you develop a military that would cause as much damage and heartache in as little time/cost as possible, while maintaining 'reputation' by not using anything non-conventional?

One nuclear armed sub can take out virtually every major city in any country on the earth...that of course is not total annihilation of a country...but for all practical purposes it is. In the case of Iran one nuclear armed sub can take out every major city...multiple times over.

But a carrier group would not have to rely upon nukes to virtually destroy Irans military capabilites. It can use conventionally armed cruise missiles from the surface ships in the group...as well as subs...and its air power.

The Iranian air force and navy is no competition whatsoever to that of a single U.S. carrier group. Once again...can they do damage...yes...but minimal damage. Can they take out a carrier group...no.

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by theking

How many times must I repeat myself...do they have the capability to do damage...yes. Can they take out a carrier group...no. A carrier group is always escorted by subs. Subs armed with conventional cruise missiles as well as subs armed with missiles with multiple nuclear warheads on each missile...with the capability of virtually destroying most countries on this earth.

I will remind you yet again that the U.S. has multiple carrier groups...anyone of which has the capability of virtually destroying most countries on this earth.

The newer subs have Harpoons, Subrocs and Tomahawks, not a good thing to try to piss off, thats the fast attacks, then you look at the boomers, they have ICBM's with multiple nuclear warheads that spread out over a huge area

Originally Posted by _Richard_

you know, i have heard this before.. IRAQ right

take a look at the scud missile problem during the iraq war.. they never really solved it, just buried the reports as the missiles were useless anyway. That isn't the case anymore.

also, i hear the nuclear armed iranian subs are working just fine

LMAO, um, I was a submariner in the Navy and that's just too funny, never bring a sword to a gun fight

Originally Posted by theking

Iran does not have any nuclear armed subs...period.

Nope, nor the tech to guide them

Originally Posted by _Richard_

sorry, i understand what you're trying to say, but it just isn't possible to annihilate an entire country. Even with multiple nuclear attacks, which would utterly destroy whatever reputation the states has left, it still would leave millions of pissed off moderate iranians who would never forget.

and lets create a hypothetical situation. lets say you're iranian, and you know for a fact any sort of confrontation with any of the very angry world powers directly would result in 'game over'

what would you do? would you develop a military that would meet anything punch for punch? or would you develop a military that would cause as much damage and heartache in as little time/cost as possible, while maintaining 'reputation' by not using anything non-conventional?

You've never heard of a trident submarine have you, it can take out half the continent, the power they have is fucking scary

Originally Posted by _Richard_

err nuclear-powered, was typing fast

actually not sure about the iranian sub capability, but i know it's operational

NO it isn't they have old tired soviet diesel submarines, they can only stay underwater for maybe 6 hours tops

[CDSmith]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

since you have brought up nuking people a few times, curious, if you know the reason why they want to attack Iran in the first place

Simple, they don't. No one "wants" to attack Iran. What is desired is that Iran cease it's nuclear program development. Nothing more. Whether or not a conflict erupts is entirely in the hands of Iranian leaders, as I told you weeks ago in a similar thread.