Featured The United States Did Draw Up A Plan To Drop 80 Nuclear Weapons On North Korea

[FairAndUnbiased]

This is unrealistic perspective.

Back in 2017, DPRK leadership was under the illusion that it could bully Trump administration with provocative actions/decisions in the Pacific. I recall a series of unpleasant exchanges between Kim Jong-Un and Donald Trump in social media platforms in regards to testing ballistic missiles over Japan and a nuclear test. Things heated to the extent that Trump administration threatened DPRK of total destruction in a United Nations session. This was no EMPTY THREAT - substantial military buildup in the region was apparent to prying eyes and nuclear strikes were on the table.

China was pushing DPRK to commence talks with Trump administration all along. However, China was also preparing for hosting a huge number of refugees from DPRK should the situation grow out of control.

The most tense situation was when sirens blew over Guam one fine day suggesting imminent nuclear strike from DPRK.... The entire world was in a virtual freeze... USA was at DeFCon 5 on this day.

Why would China risk nuclear war with USA for another irrational state actor? This is suicidal foreign policy.

In 2017 North Korea deployed a 12000 km range ICBM and a 280 kT hydrogen bomb. They know nobody will do anything about it because losing even 5 cities just to take out North Korea is a total joke. The bluff was called.

True suicidal foreign policy would be if someone actually attacked North Korea, which has 40+ bombs, the ICBMs to deliver them and a first strike policy. North Korea's GDP is just $25 billion and only has a population of 23 million. If even 1/10 their ICBMs hit their targets, most nations would lose far more even if North Korea was totally destroyed.

In addition, China has a signed PRC-DPRK mutual defense pact, and China has never broken a written treaty, even the unfair ones signed to the British (see Hong Kong). Meanwhile some other country broke 500+ treaties and abandoned treaty allies like South Vietnam and SEATO.

 

[BHAN85]

ICBM can carry non-miniaturised nukes? NK hasn't miniaturised nukes.

 

[Feng Leng]

NK doesn't have miniaturized thermonuclear warheads. They haven't done enough testing to prove reliability. They have an unreliable force in being deterrence but it's enough to put eggs on Trump's face. Earlier, Trump administration was boasting about "complete, verifiable, irreversible dismantlement"

 

[BHAN85]

Europe is practically a part of the Ummah already.

It's offtopic, but a ruling elite can't give unfair orders to state workers eternally.

Someday, when all relatives of state workers be unemployed and starving, maybe they stop of obbey orders about globalisation, be in their knees to China, immigrants, and so on.

USA ruling elite understood this when they allow Trump to be president, they are smart.

European ruling elite are dumb as hell, but they finally will do the same.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

ICBM can carry non-miniaturised nukes? NK hasn't miniaturised nukes.

yes it does.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests_of_North_Korea #6

Also, there's no proof that miniaturization is more difficult than getting a device in the first place.

Proof against: every other nuclear power quickly miniaturized.

Example: China tested an entire launch vehicle+device combination in 1966, 2 years after 1st test.

List of nuclear weapons tests of China - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[LeGenD]

It's more of a bluff because the surrounding countries including Russia will get affected by the fallout and USA doesn't need Nukes to win over N Korea.

I understand.

However, that is still a much lower price to pay than getting entire country wiped out for another state, particularly when it is the irrational actor in the region.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

NK doesn't have miniaturized thermonuclear warheads. They haven't done enough testing to prove reliability. They have an unreliable force in being deterrence but it's enough to put eggs on Trump's face. Earlier, Trump administration was boasting about "complete, verifiable, irreversible dismantlement"

that's mostly propaganda. it takes ~2 years of development to miniaturize, with 60's tech, as previously proven. In addition, North Korea has already proven they are technologically more advanced than India with Hwasong-12.

 

[BHAN85]

yes it does.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests_of_North_Korea #6

Also, there's no proof that miniaturization is more difficult than getting a device in the first place.

Proof against: every other nuclear power quickly miniaturized.

Example: China tested an entire launch vehicle+device combination in 1966, 2 years after 1st test.

List of nuclear weapons tests of China - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There's not proof about NK has miniaturised nukes. Then they can't deliver it in a ICBM.

 

[BHAN85]

that's mostly propaganda. it takes ~2 years of development to miniaturize, with 60's tech, as previously proven. In addition, North Korea has already proven they are technologically more advanced than India with Hwasong-12.

It takes 2years in a country of hundreds million people, with enough engineers thinking how to solve the problem.

Maybe NK never will get it miniaturised nukes.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

There's not proof about NK has miniaturised nukes. Then they can't deliver it in a ICBM.

nobody knows since they're not going to show photos and it is impossible to guess dimensions from remote test data.

All I know is North Korea claimed miniaturization after 10 years of development. China in the 60's managed it with 2. Number of people does not correlate to development speed. See India. North Korean ICBMs have already surpassed India.

 

[LeGenD]

In 2017 North Korea deployed a 12000 km range ICBM and a 280 kT hydrogen bomb. They know nobody will do anything about it because losing even 5 cities just to take out North Korea is a total joke. The bluff was called.

True suicidal foreign policy would be if someone actually attacked North Korea, which has 40+ bombs, the ICBMs to deliver them and a first strike policy. North Korea's GDP is just $25 billion and only has a population of 23 million. If even 1/10 their ICBMs hit their targets, most nations would lose far more even if North Korea was totally destroyed.

In addition, China has a signed PRC-DPRK mutual defense pact, and China has never broken a written treaty, even the unfair ones signed to the British (see Hong Kong). Meanwhile some other country broke 500+ treaties and abandoned treaty allies like South Vietnam and SEATO.

DPRK tested its ICBM (Hwasong-14) in 2017 but this delivery platform was deemed premature by those in the knowhow.

FYI: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/31/north-koreas-latest-icbm-test-failed-in-reentry-phase.html

Not sure what is the situation now because further tests did not take place.

Bluff? Trump administration put its foot down and was willing to pound DPRK to oblivion. Relevant preparations, buildup, and intent - all were made public in due time.

China was spotted building camps near DPRK to host refugees from this country should fireworks commence.

Fearing the Worst, China Plans Refugee Camps on North Korean Border (Published 2017)

A Chinese county has a blueprint in place if a crisis in North Korea results in thousands of refugees crossing the border.

www.nytimes.com

China building network of refugee camps along border with North Korea

Document suggests at least five camps are being set up as Beijing prepares for possible influx of refugees should Kim Jong-un’s regime collapse

www.theguardian.com

Edgy times on China's border with North Korea

I sat on a metal bench, the chill seeping through my down jacket, as a Chinese government official towered above me, shouting.

www.reuters.com

Chinese leadership knew and understood the potential costs of supporting DPRK when Kim Jong-Un was not paying heed to reason. Thankfully Kim Jong-Un realized his error and blinked, and talks commenced to diffuse tensions - Singapore being the host country. ICBM and nuclear weapons were no longer tested. No kind of defense pact will make any difference when a true superpower decide to say ENOUGH.

FYI: https://english.alarabiya.net/en/vi...se-diplomacy-amid-the-US-North-Korea-standoff

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

DPRK tested these weapon systems in 2017 but delivery system was not up to the task back then. Not sure what is the situation now because further tests did not take place.

Bluff? Trump administration put its foot down and was preparing to pound DPRK to oblivion. Preparations, buildup, and intent - all were made public in due time.

China was spotted building camps near DPRK to host refugees from this country should fireworks commence.

Chinese leadership knew and understood the potential costs of supporting DPRK when it was not paying heed to reason. Thankfully Kim Jong-Un realized as well and blinked, and talks commenced. ICBM and nuclear weapons were no longer tested. No kind of defense pact will make any difference when a true superpower decide to say ENOUGH.

FYI: https://english.alarabiya.net/en/vi...se-diplomacy-amid-the-US-North-Korea-standoff

In 1950 the US thought the same. it resulted in the longest retreat in US history. In 1950 the US was at the peak of its power with 40% of global GDP.

if US lost anything going after North Korea, it would've already lost far more than it gained.

Your article mentions nothing about China building refugee camps btw.

 

[LeGenD]

@FairAndUnbiased

I have added new links in my previous post. Kindly recheck it.

1950s was a different time.

US-led forces managed to liberate South Korea from North Korea but China saved North Korea from subsequent takeover/occupation. Both USA and China accomplished their primary objective in the Korean War. Both can claim victory in the right context and stalemate at worse.

Korean War in current times is very likely to take a much different (and ugly) turn in which DPRK will be risking oblivion. US-DPRK standoff in 2017 serve as a vivid reminder of this potential catastrophe.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

@FairAndUnbiased

I have added new links in my previous post. Kindly recheck it.

1950s was a different time.

US-led forces managed to liberate South Korea from North Korea but China saved North Korea from subsequent takeover/occupation. Both USA and China accomplished their primary objective in the Korean War. Both can claim victory in the right context and stalemate at worse.

Korean War in current times is very likely to take a much different (and ugly) turn in which DPRK will be risking oblivion. US-DPRK standoff in 2017 serve as a vivid reminder of this potential catastrophe.

DPRK will launch a first strike in any war. Knowing that, even if it were destroyed, it doesn't matter, because inflicting that level of damage on US or a US ally would cause the US to lose all credibility as well as suffer significant loss. It would not be worth it for the US.

It would deter any normal US president. Trump just doesn't care about his losses. Which is fine if the world was a 1v1, but it isn't. The world is FFA.

 

[LeGenD]

DPRK will launch a first strike in any war. Knowing that, even if it were destroyed, it doesn't matter, because inflicting that level of damage on US or a US ally would cause the US to lose all credibility as well as suffer significant loss. It would not be worth it for the US.

It would deter any normal US president. Trump just doesn't care about his losses. Which is fine if the world was a 1v1, but it isn't. The world is FFA.

Americans have developed and fielded the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) network to address this contingency, and this system is working very well lately.

The Boeing Company Official Website

Welcome to the official corporate site for the world's largest aerospace company and leading manufacturer of commercial jetliners and defense, space and security systems. Learn about our passion for innovation, our products, careers and more.

www.boeing.com

DPRK is not in the position to threaten/intimidate USA any further. Times are changing.