Equiv yeild: About 10 tons TNT
Only deployed for 10 years or so, the brass considered such weapons dangerous, risk of diversion or loss
Posted on 09/14/2017 3:54:59 PM PDT by mandaladon
Someone explain ICBM’s and SLBM’s to them.
I wonder if China and/or Russia is helping North Korea along?
He shot off another missile a while ago. I’m betting on sooner.
I think that’s why they don’t object, and or show any concern for a madman on their doorstep with nuclear weapons.
Lets do it
Not sure why.
I know a US ICBM would be too much tonnage, but we have tactical nukes we can launch from destroyers/cruisers or stand-off launch from B-52s or B2s.
Putting them on the ground in the south would gain us (or them) nothing.
The Korean Armistice Agreement is the armistice which serves to ensure a complete cessation of hostilities of the Korean War. It was signed by U.S. Army Lieutenant General William Harrison, Jr. representing the United Nations Command (UNC), North Korean General Nam Il representing the Korean People's Army (KPA), and the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army (PVA). The armistice was signed on July 27, 1953, and was designed to "insure a complete cessation of hostilities and of all acts of armed force in Korea until a final peaceful settlement is achieved." No "final peaceful settlement" has been achieved. The signed armistice established the Korean Demilitarized Zone (de facto a new border between the two nations), put into force a cease-fire, and finalized repatriation of prisoners of war. The Demilitarized Zone runs not far from the 38th parallel, which separated North and South Korea before the Korean War.
Tactical means more than just ICBMs or SBLMs in the nuclear arms field.
Maybe Taiwan could use some, too.
We had them in S. Korea before. They were moved to another U.S. military operations in the territory of another U.S. ally in Asia. The South Koreans know that history. They are asking that they be moved back.
South Korea could have nukes, if they overthrow North Korea’s government and take over those nukes. In the meantime, the USA should not give nukes to South Korea, like putting gasoline on flames in that area. Best bet is to leave the nukes with the experts, namely the USA. When North Korea gets too out of control, the USA will saturate North Korea with conventional firepower and end that rogue regime. It’s unfortunate the South Korea may end up destroyed by the north if hostility breaks out, but we can help them rebuild the south while they take over control of the north. Question is, what of China and Russia, but if they want the north then hand them a destroyed wasteland.
Seems like just yesterday that South Koreans wanted the US and our nukes to get the hell out of SK. The juche-fruit may be doing the world a favor by immanentizing the eschaton.
Equiv yeild: About 10 tons TNT
Only deployed for 10 years or so, the brass considered such weapons dangerous, risk of diversion or loss
“Putting them on the ground in the south would gain us (or them) nothing. “
This isn’t about tactics. It’s about comfort. Think of nukes as a national teddy bear.
Three kids in a jeep. And a nuke. What could be dangerous about that?
Do it.
Sounds like a good time to me!
My father-in-law was a Korean War veteran, 2/1st Marines. He indicated that the horseplay when his company got pulled into a reserve position was almost as dangerous as being in actual combat. It was “hold ma beer” stuff.
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.