Fire and Fury

[CHAPPERS]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump

A total exercise in delection.

 

[Juan Albion]

Very much so. Guam is a US territory and home to a US air strike force. If he launches an attack on Guam expect a nuclear strike from the US on NK.

Exactly. But NK has been very smart. By threatening Guam, they threaten the US without threatening any actual State. It's a very clever way of ratcheting up the tension. Really I was asking Humpty Trumpty, does this count? Because that's what NK are asking, with a big smile on their faces.

 

[The Clamp]

Exactly. But NK has been very smart. By threatening Guam, they threaten the US without threatening any actual State. It's a very clever way of ratcheting up the tension. Really I was asking Humpty Trumpty, does this count? Because that's what NK are asking, with a big smile on their faces.

Ah, I see. Yes, NK are cheeky gets.

 

[The Clamp]

If the US are gonna try anything they are going to need to do it soonish while Kim's missiles are still dropping into the sea.

 

[Giraffe]

I just google mapped Guam. The chances of a North Korean missile being able to hit that can't be much very much more than 0%. It's tiny! I'd be more worried it will just flop and hit Japan!

 

[ditchy]

I just google mapped Guam. The chances of a North Korean missile being able to hit that can't be much very much more than 0%. It's tiny! I'd be more worried it will just flop and hit Japan!

Guam , is basically one giant Aircraft carrier . its a huge military base

 

[Giraffe]

Guam , is basically one giant Aircraft carrier . its a huge military base

Yep but N Korea has the accuracy of a Mark Farrington shot. It's like you throwing a stone out of the window and trying to hit a postage stamp.

 

[Juan Albion]

Yep but N Korea has the accuracy of a Mark Farrington shot. It's like you throwing a stone out of the window and trying to hit a postage stamp.

Would you feel comfortable saying that while sitting in Seoul though?

 

[DTES]

There's a really interesting - and long - read about North Korea here, if anyone's interested:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-worst-problem-on-earth/528717/

Would you feel comfortable saying that while sitting in Seoul though?

From the same article, re. North Korea hitting Seoul:

'For years North Korea has had extensive batteries of conventional artillery—an estimated 8,000 big guns—just north of the demilitarized zone (DMZ), which is less than 40 miles from Seoul, South Korea’s capital, a metropolitan area of more than 25 million people. One high-ranking U.S. military officer who commanded forces in the Korean theater, now retired, told me he’d heard estimates that if a grid were laid across Seoul dividing it into three-square-foot blocks, these guns could, within hours, “pepper every single one.”'

 

[Juan Albion]

There's a really interesting - and long - read about North Korea here, if anyone's interested:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-worst-problem-on-earth/528717/



From the same article, re. North Korea hitting Seoul:

'For years North Korea has had extensive batteries of conventional artillery—an estimated 8,000 big guns—just north of the demilitarized zone (DMZ), which is less than 40 miles from Seoul, South Korea’s capital, a metropolitan area of more than 25 million people. One high-ranking U.S. military officer who commanded forces in the Korean theater, now retired, told me he’d heard estimates that if a grid were laid across Seoul dividing it into three-square-foot blocks, these guns could, within hours, “pepper every single one.”'

I think that point is highly debated. First, that would probably require them to commit all their artillery that is capable of reaching Seoul, which many consider unlikely. Second, it is estimated that as many as 25% of shells and rockets fired by NK fail to detonate. Third, as soon as the first shell was fired, there would be considerable retaliation aimed at the artillery sites.

Nevertheless, I would not want to be sitting in Seoul if things kicked off, that's for sure. I suspect the SKs wish their capital had been built a lot further south. How many times did the city change hands last time? Was it four?

 

[Motogull]

What a comforting thought. Two shitgibbons in charge of nukes taunting each other.

 

[portlock seagull]

I think that point is highly debated. First, that would probably require them to commit all their artillery that is capable of reaching Seoul, which many consider unlikely. Second, it is estimated that as many as 25% of shells and rockets fired by NK fail to detonate. Third, as soon as the first shell was fired, there would be considerable retaliation aimed at the artillery sites.

Nevertheless, I would not want to be sitting in Seoul if things kicked off, that's for sure. I suspect the SKs wish their capital had been built a lot further south. How many times did the city change hands last time? Was it four?

I disagree, only on the basis of what I heard listening to the Head of US armed forces for many years in Seoul last week for half an hour. Here's a few of the points he - an expert obviously! - made:

Conflict will not start with nuclears - week 3 of the war is when things get really dangerous (see below)
War most likely to be triggered, like the 1st one was, by miscalculation by North
Conventional war therefore is how things will proceed to begin with
68,0000 casualties on day 1 alone in S.Korea, casualties on a scale not seen seen since WW's
300,000 in week 1 - the Arsenal the North has is considerable to put it mildly
N.Korea must effectively win (reach all strategic goals) by 3rd week a) because their resources run out b) the US by then will have brought all its heavies in from around the globe (tanks, artillery) and it's force will be overwhelming
That's why week 3 gets dangerous, because if Korean leadership has back to the wall and can no longer win, might just be crazy enough to hit the button given the US and allies aren't exactly going to let him remain in power. Regime change will definitely be required so what have they got to lose?!

In summary, miscalculation most likely cause but conventional warfare will ensue but could quickly escalate into nuclear if things don't go The North's way. Even without Nuclear exchanges, the casualties will be on a scale unimaginable to today's generations. Lest we forgot 3m died in the first Korean War and the Norths army is now ten times bigger than it was in that conflict. In a word, horror.

You've not been charged for this insight.

 

[British Bulldog]

Trump won't start a nuclear war, apart from the fact he knows he daren't he'd be assassinated before he got his finger on the button. Biggest threat is the NK leader but he would be taken out as soon as he starts as the US, China, Russia, etc really wouldn't want to get back into a world war situation. That's my opinion anyway.

 

[The_Viper]

If North Korea ever actually attack somebody do you reckon China would steamroll them before anybody else gets the chance?

 

[easynow]

If North Korea ever actually attack somebody do you reckon China would steamroll them before anybody else gets the chance?

China would definitely want full control of North Korea (if it doesn't already) if war broke out.

 

[DTES]

China would definitely want full control of North Korea (if it doesn't already) if war broke out.

What a ****ing mess North Korea would be to sort out for whoever took it over - and that's before any taking into account any destruction caused by the war

 

[LlcoolJ]

There's a really interesting - and long - read about North Korea here, if anyone's interested:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-worst-problem-on-earth/528717/



From the same article, re. North Korea hitting Seoul:

'For years North Korea has had extensive batteries of conventional artillery—an estimated 8,000 big guns—just north of the demilitarized zone (DMZ), which is less than 40 miles from Seoul, South Korea’s capital, a metropolitan area of more than 25 million people. One high-ranking U.S. military officer who commanded forces in the Korean theater, now retired, told me he’d heard estimates that if a grid were laid across Seoul dividing it into three-square-foot blocks, these guns could, within hours, “pepper every single one.”'

Good read that thanks.

 

[looney]

Think Mutually assured Destruction will keep Kims finger of the button for as long as possible. Trump wont want to start throwing around nukes. Could be a major mess on the cards.

 

[Juan Albion]

I disagree, only on the basis of what I heard listening to the Head of US armed forces for many years in Seoul last week for half an hour. Here's a few of the points he - an expert obviously! - made:

Conflict will not start with nuclears - week 3 of the war is when things get really dangerous (see below)
War most likely to be triggered, like the 1st one was, by miscalculation by North
Conventional war therefore is how things will proceed to begin with
68,0000 casualties on day 1 alone in S.Korea, casualties on a scale not seen seen since WW's
300,000 in week 1 - the Arsenal the North has is considerable to put it mildly
N.Korea must effectively win (reach all strategic goals) by 3rd week a) because their resources run out b) the US by then will have brought all its heavies in from around the globe (tanks, artillery) and it's force will be overwhelming
That's why week 3 gets dangerous, because if Korean leadership has back to the wall and can no longer win, might just be crazy enough to hit the button given the US and allies aren't exactly going to let him remain in power. Regime change will definitely be required so what have they got to lose?!

In summary, miscalculation most likely cause but conventional warfare will ensue but could quickly escalate into nuclear if things don't go The North's way. Even without Nuclear exchanges, the casualties will be on a scale unimaginable to today's generations. Lest we forgot 3m died in the first Korean War and the Norths army is now ten times bigger than it was in that conflict. In a word, horror.

You've not been charged for this insight.

I listened to that as well, if it is what I'm thinking of, and it was very good. But what are you actually disagreeing with? That doesn't really negate anything I was saying. In fact, if anything it backs up what I wrote. As bad as 68,000 casualties on day one is, it doesn't represent hitting every 3 foot square on a grid within hours. Only NK's best artillery can currently reach Seoul from where they are, and, as I stated, there is plenty of opinion that they would be unlikely to expose it all from hour 1.

But, no doubt, it would be terrible. I wish I could be so sure that it wouldn't start with a nuclear strike - precisely because the military usually aim to do the thing you don't expect. I could see someone convincing Trump that some tactical nuclear strikes could severely diminish the very artillery we are discussing. He'd have to be a complete nutter to actually do it, but...

 

[jakarta]

So Armageddon actually consists of firing 4 missiles into the Sea, well at least it's a target you can't miss...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-40883372