Posted on 05/01/2017 1:33:59 PM PDT by RoosterRedux
Pre-emptive strike utilizing stealth B2s taking out communications, radar, and power dropping thermobaric bombs while the NORKs are sleeping.
What’s the delivery system for the MOABs going to be until you take out the SAMs?
This is why the Norks, unless this guy is a raving lunatic in every way, would never launch a full scale attack.
Retired Air Force here.
Assuming the NORK artillery is firing because they are retaliating over our first strike, we would be derelict in our duty to not get our people up and out in the field before the first smart weapon hits Kim’s palace.
I wonder what such OPSEC, or more specifically lack of it, would alert the NORKs? Would they preempt our first strike with their own strike?
Also, I’m not sure we can do THAT much damage from the air in a short enough time to take out Kim’s assets BEFORE he kills lots of South Koreans. We’d need a fairly complex campaign to work them over good similar to Desert Storm.
WE do not use ground forces as cannon fodder. Taking the NORK dug in positions with ground troops would be like Mount Surabachi on Iwo. It has to be a pounding for a while with everything we got. I heard some of those tunnels are up to 900 feet underground. What a mess!
Still, we CANNOT allow him to have solid fuel ICBMs with nuke warheads. We just can’t.
In conjunction with Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses.
Well let’s hope that our electronic SAM-Jam and response denial programs are up to snuff but if you’re going to send in something with the radar signature of aircraft large enough to drop a MOAB you really, really need to be confident.
Which is why we should get US troops out of South Korea. SK is perfectly capable of defending itself, and our troops are merely an attractive target for the north. They would be sitting ducks and their presence serves no purpose.
I disagree. I think the presence of US troops is what has kept anything major from happening there since 1953.
I really don’t necessarily mean MOAB.
Although a Vietnam War veteran, I’m not really up to snuff on modern warfare capabilities.
I’d like to think there are ranges of options available to us, say B-1Bs, B-2s and B-52Hs with stand-off delivery options, among hopefully many others.
Oddly...his older brother was meant to assume leadership. Kim went to a private school in Switzerland, unsavory yes, but the suffering that might have been avoided by putting a bullet through this brain at thirteen.
Which is a euphemism for "killing women and children", right? In this age of high precision and tailored effects, actual targets of military importance can be located an surgically destroyed.
Mass killings are an atrocity, no matter how good our intentions.
No, it means destroying factories, power plants, bridges, railways, roadways, merchant shipping ... If you think these aren't "actual targets of military importance", think again. Where the hell do you think your food, fuel, weapons, equipment and ammunition come from? Where do you think the enemy's food, fuel, weapons, equipment and ammunition come from?
All the targets you described are legitimate targets and can be addressed using conventional precision weapons.
There have been lots of debate about our use of nuclear weapons on Japan - and I have gone back and forth on that subject myself at different times of my life - but the moment we decided that the mass murder of innocents was justified, we lost part of our soul, losing our claim of being a Christian country.
If we take the “moral” route, defer using nukes in the Japanese theater, and decide on a good, ol’ fashioned invasion of the country, how many people, military and civilian, would have died?
Under this scenario, what does the Japanese country look like after the war?
How does the Japanese psyche develop after this?
At the conclusion of the war, given what the Japanese had done to it's neighbors, do we still worry about the “moral high ground”?
Use of nukes dramatically shortened the war, and saved casualties, a large number of them, especially on the allied side.
I make no apologies for that.
This argument about deciding to become mass murders by using nukes is a classic straw man argument. Yes, it did kill many civilians. But the effect was psychological. It showed the Japanese that they could not possibly win the war, and that it's continuance was both futile and catastrophic to the Japanese nation.
In a word, it ended it.
Today, in the Korean theater, tac nukes have limited applicability and value, so their use is not likely. Yes, I agree conventional forces, of which we have ample amounts, are the way to go, as long as the conflict remains localized.
The deeper question remains, however - what if Kim loses it, and starts delivering nukes, in whatever manner? What shall the Allied response be? Because, trust me, if nukes are indeed introduced there WILL be a response.
CA....
The B-61 earth penetrating gravity bomb is a thermonuclear weapon, of variable yield. It's minimum yield is 0.3 kT. No typo.
All the targets you described are legitimate targets
Good. We're on the same page, there. And they're examples of "countervalue" targets regardless of whether we intend to destroy them with Tritonal or Tritium ...
and can be addressed using conventional precision weapons.
Not necessarily. That may depend very much on where geographically they're located, and how well they're hardened. Remember the German U-boat pens in WWII? We never did manage to defeat them. Their Me262 factory was similarly hardened. Maybe our current "Massive Ordnance Penetrator" would manage the job ... Certainly a W-88 would do the trick.
There have been lots of debate about our use of nuclear weapons on Japan - and I have gone back and forth on that subject myself at different times of my life
AS have I. I have no use for the deliberate killing of civilians for the sake of killing civilians. Arthur Harris was a monster. OTOH, both Nagasaki and Hiroshima contained legitimate targets, and the whole business of ending the war RIGHT NOW is not to be discounted. On the third hand, the death toll for the attacks on H & N were of medium size compared to contemporaneous firebomb raids. If H&N were atrocities, so were the firebomb raids on other cities.
but the moment we decided that the mass murder of innocents was justified, we lost part of our soul, losing our claim of being a Christian country.
I think that happened in 1865. The residents of Atlanta (or of the Shenandoan Valley) would probably agree.
By the time we killed all those people, we had already cut off Japan from oil and all other imports that could sustain further prosecution of the war and they were completely isolated. Their navy had ceased to exist and we could strike any part of Japan with impunity.
I know that we couldn't have invaded without horrific, even unsustainable casualties, and I know that there was stark fear that the Soviets were going to take over the attacks on Japan and seize territory - but we had other choices we could have made and didn't.
I'm not entirely sure that I equate Sherman with the heat, blast and radiation of our nuclear strikes but I'm with you that we lost our Christian identity along the way.
Gotcha. God bless and thanks for your service!
Except it’s no longer 1953 and South Korea is now rich and well armed. They can take care of themselves. US troops serve no purpose there.
“MOABs”
+1
Describe your time there and your duties.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.