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

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

http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/MSNBC/C...2.grid-8x2.jpg
[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

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

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.

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

It's just more posturing.

Originally posted in your other thread about this subject.

http://doctorbulldog.files.wordpress.../adversary.jpg

"This time I mean burizonizz"

Shit or get off the pot.

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



.

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

gotta feeling there has been a power change in NKorea

with sunfire missiles they wouldn't need strategic nukes

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

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

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.

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.

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-..._5457240_n.jpg
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'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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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?

I scoff at the idea that you think we are itching to attack Iran. :2 cents:

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

i'll give you a hint.. APOC

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

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.

Sword fight!!!

Not the gay kind either.... Juicy!

Duel to the death!

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.

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.

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?

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