U.S. Bombers Buzz North Korea as Trump’s Asia Trip Looms

The Wall Street Journal ^ | November 2, 2017 | Jonathan Chang

[KingofZion]

Two U.S. B-1B bombers flew near North Korea on Thursday, alongside Japanese and South Korean jet fighters, provoking anger from Pyongyang ahead of President Donald Trump

[KingofZion]

Blunt warning to Rocket Man in advance of Trump visit to DMZ? Or perhaps recon ops in preparation for dropping a fat boy on fat boy?

[Parley Baer]

Hehehehe, sending a message to Lil Kim.

[Paladin2]

Wait ‘till he sees the Rockets’ red glare.

[DoughtyOne]

One of Trump’s biggest hindrances to taking action against North Korea, is the impact on South Korea.

Wouldn’t it be something if he ordered action while standing among the people of South Korea.

[Reno89519]

I wonder what Rocket Man will try over the coming days while Trump is in the region. Interesting we now have three carrier groups in the area.

[Reno89519]

I wonder what Rocket Man will try over the coming days while Trump is in the region. Interesting we now have three carrier groups in the area.

[JPJones]

Ha Ha, burning chickens in the barnyard!

[John S Mosby]

Radio all day, Fox Radio— kept saying the B1-B was not “a nuclear bomber”. It’s mission is not “nuclear strategic” anymore... however it is capable as friends have told me, of carrying W-61 and W-83-— supersonically. As well as other deliverables of a massive level (JDAM for example).

The context was the “norks” not getting it right- that B1-B is not nuclear.

Puzzle as to why they would do this, unless to loyally lull. US still has a non-first strike policy— so no need. But, were we to actually deliver, it could be done so fast they would have zero chance of reply. And all hell would break loose. Hence the need to talk to the new “Mao” in chinee land.

[jeffersondem]

“In late September, B-1B bombers from Guam conducted a rare flyover north of the demilitarized zone that divides the Korean Peninsula.”

This kind-of makes it sound like US warplanes flew over North Korea. I don't think it happened that way.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe US planes stayed in international airspace, perhaps off the North Korean coast.

The Wall Street Journal should clear this up.

[PJammers]

It’s not stealth either. Neither are F-15s. Unless, of course, they jammed Kim’s radar.

BTW F-15s are nuclear capable.

[jeffersondem]

“US still has a non-first strike policy . . .”

When did Trump agree to this? Never heard of it.

[Hugh the Scot]

That’s wrong. The lancer entered service specifically as a nuclear bomber.

[Does so]

A flurry of sonic booms would send a message.

[John S Mosby]

believe it is part of several agreements with soviets. course nothing to do with chicoms, or Norks (ie. other nuclear adversaries). But, it may not be in place now after “de-Soviet” (but still commie) Russia. We two countries being
the major holders of largest numbers of deliverable nuclear devices.

fwiw there’s this “No First Use” on wiki-questionable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use

[John S Mosby]

Of more recent interest is the collapse of an underground tunnel production facility for Norks nukes— so said. One wonders what caused said collapse? Perhaps the new “mao” xi of china got the word to show their hand.

all the demonstrations down range of nork “icbm” and over japan— mean nothing if the warheads are now buried— if they are.

Not a lot of US press on this, at least.

[onedoug]

Enough overflights. Let’s do it!

[DaxtonBrown]

There will be many flybys to lull them asleep.

[jeffersondem]

“The United States has refused to adopt a no-first-use policy, saying that it “reserves the right to use” nuclear weapons first in the case of conflict. The U.S. doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons was revised most recently in the Nuclear Posture Review, released April 6, 2010.[31]. . .”

It is clear from your source that the US has not agreed not to use nuclear weapons first. In 2010 the Obama regime messed with the policy some - doubt Obama would have used anything but talk regardless of how many times the US was attacked.

But historically the US policy was, and is again, - we will not use nuclear weapons first unless it is necessary.

[jeffersondem]

“That’s wrong. The lancer entered service specifically as a nuclear bomber.”

The B-1 was nuclear capable until it wasn't.

The US stripped the B-1s of the equipment necessary to deliver nuclear weapons. That's crazy but that's what has happened according to the reporting I've read.

[OldMissileer]

It’s mission is not “nuclear strategic” anymore... however it is capable as friends have told me, of carrying W-61 and W-83-— supersonically.

The B-1B is NOT a nuclear capable bomber anymore.

Modifications have been made to carry conventional stores and also they are no longer certified to carry nuclear weapons.

The certification is not just a paperwork thing and it would cost huge amounts of money to certify them again for nuclear use.