Current Events > How would nuclear war with North Korea go down?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Could they land nukes in Hawaii or the west coast? or would we just flatten them?
---

north korea would go down
usa would be short a few nukes
---

Quickly
---

ManSpread posted...

north korea would go down
usa would be short a few nukes

Send a team in, fire their own nukes at them.
---

Do they actually have long range nukes or is it a big bluff
---

ReignFury posted...

Do they actually have long range nukes or is it a big bluff

a big ****ing bluff.
---

Ignoring other countries, 1 Ohio class sub cripples them for a century.

Armament:24 × Trident I C4 SLBM with up to 8 MIRVed 100 ktTNT W76 nuclear warheads each, range 4,000 nmi (7,400 km; 4,600 mi)

Almost 200 nuclear bombs on a single sub.
---

ReignFury posted...

Do they actually have long range nukes or is it a big bluff

They do not at this point in time.

The US would demolish them in short order, but there would be casualties in South Korea and Japan, not to mention civilian casualties in NK.
---

RebelElite791 posted...

The US would demolish them in short order, but there would be casualties in South Korea and Japan, not to mention civilian casualties in NK.

Which is why it won't happen.
---

We would chuckle as their bottle rockets sputter into the water and shake a rattle to calm Kimmy down.
---

They probably don't even have the ability to nuke southern South Korea.

So.... it'd suck to be in Seoul, though.
---

The US would not launch nuclear weapons at North Korea, don't be ridiculous. That has farther reaching implications than just "lol blowing up Pyongyang".

North Korean nuclear weapons are statistically massive failures. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they haven't even designed a warhead capable of fitting on a missile and the missiles they test more often than not fail the tests. It's possible they could launch a nuclear weapon and it's possible it could hit the US, but it would probably either be intercepted or not land on target.

Hexenherz posted...

The US would not launch nuclear weapons at North Korea, don't be ridiculous. That has farther reaching implications than just "lol blowing up Pyongyang".

North Korean nuclear weapons are statistically massive failures. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they haven't even designed a warhead capable of fitting on a missile and the missiles they test more often than not fail the tests. It's possible they could launch a nuclear weapon and it's possible it could hit the US, but it would probably either be intercepted or not land on target.

I don't think anyone is worried about North Korea hitting the US. It's our allies in South Korea and Japan we are worried about. NK can definitely aim a nuke and fire at either of those targets.
---

Their missiles would never reach us. Worst case scenario we nuke their nukes out of the sky. It's a given that North Korea would be destroyed, but probably not a total obliteration since we'd have to be mindful of fallout hitting the surrounding countries.
---

South Korean cities close to the DMZ like Seoul would get annihilated in retaliation, Japan would probably fare better because NK artillery doesn't go that far and their missiles don't have a stellar track record. Definitely would be a ton of civilian casualties though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJraqJSUR78
---

SpiralDrift posted...

Worst case scenario we nuke their nukes out of the sky.

Lol people honestly think we can just shoot nukes out of the sky after they launch?
---

Howl posted...

SpiralDrift posted...

Worst case scenario we nuke their nukes out of the sky.

Lol people honestly think we can just shoot nukes out of the sky after they launch?

Nuclear-armed antiballistic missiles are a thing. Granted they're not a sure thing, especially if it were a larger exchange with Russia for example, but we have enough to spare to cover the 2 or 3 from North Korea that might even make it that far.
---

SpiralDrift posted...

Howl posted...

SpiralDrift posted...

Worst case scenario we nuke their nukes out of the sky.

Lol people honestly think we can just shoot nukes out of the sky after they launch?

Nuclear-armed antiballistic missiles are a thing. Granted they're not a sure thing, especially if it were a larger exchange with Russia for example, but we have enough to spare to cover the 2 or 3 from North Korea that might even make it that far.

Dude they've only ever successfully intercepted 1 missile. And they aren't even sure if it's possible to intercept multiple missiles at a time at all.
---

Howl posted...

SpiralDrift posted...

Howl posted...

SpiralDrift posted...

Worst case scenario we nuke their nukes out of the sky.

Lol people honestly think we can just shoot nukes out of the sky after they launch?

Nuclear-armed antiballistic missiles are a thing. Granted they're not a sure thing, especially if it were a larger exchange with Russia for example, but we have enough to spare to cover the 2 or 3 from North Korea that might even make it that far.

Dude they've only ever successfully intercepted 1 missile. And they aren't even sure if it's possible to intercept multiple missiles at a time at all.

You're probably thinking of conventional antiballistic missiles, ie, bullets hitting bullets. You don't need that kind of accuracy if your antiballistic missile is a nuke itself. As far as I know this is still a part of our anti-nuke strategy. The conventional ABMs still need work, though, yeah.
---

Despite massive fearmongering by a few irresponsible media outlets, North Korea only really poses a threat to its border nations. Yes, they definitely have nuclear weapons; however they don't really have the technology to deliver them anywhere. Unless they strap them to a donkey on a raft and we give them a few month head start to paddle it over, they pose no threat to us North Americans. Should they launch a weapon at South Korea, it would basically play out like Afghanistan did for us; an international entente of troops would file into the country like rednecks in a barbecue joint.

They are just saber rattling because the naively believe they can provoke another country to attack them and then call on their (very shakey) defensive treaty with China in order to have a chance and get those sweet, sweet Chinese Army reinforcements.

I guess it's been a while since I really looked into it, but I don't think the range of NK's missiles even would reach japan's commerce centers. I mean, a nuke anywhere would be devastating, but I just don't think NK really gains anything from launching a nuke on non vital targets, or on their own neighborhood. Being seen as having the capability does give them some sort of leeway, or at least they probably think so.

They're bluffing/boasting but lol good luck trying to figure out what they hope to accomplish

Jet_Enduro101 posted...

I guess it's been a while since I really looked into it, but I don't think the range of NK's missiles even would reach japan's commerce centers. I mean, a nuke anywhere would be devastating, but I just don't think NK really gains anything from launching a nuke on non vital targets, or on their own neighborhood. Being seen as having the capability does give them some sort of leeway, or at least they probably think so.

Theres 3 things that need to happen for N. Korea to hit Japan or the US with a nuclear device.

1. Create a nuclear bomb. (They've been able to detonate small yield devices since 2006)

2. Develop ICBM's capable of reaching the intended target. (They still need to work on this since a majority if not all missile tests have been failures and barely reach Japan.)

3. Miniaturize their nuclear warheads to fit on the ICBM (They are nowhere near this level of technology and won't be for a long time.

N. Korea has nukes comparable to Fat Man and Little Boy which need to be delivered via aircraft.

Huge difference between this,



and this,

Not directly related, but this is super interesting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b379aN45VEE
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0ArZU2AfMs
---

Howl posted...

SpiralDrift posted...

Worst case scenario we nuke their nukes out of the sky.

Lol people honestly think we can just shoot nukes out of the sky after they launch?

...do you not know what AAW is?
---

Howl posted...

SpiralDrift posted...

Worst case scenario we nuke their nukes out of the sky.

Lol people honestly think we can just shoot nukes out of the sky after they launch?

i do it for a living, and the answer is 'yes, we can do that.'

Howl posted...

Dude they've only ever successfully intercepted 1 missile. And they aren't even sure if it's possible to intercept multiple missiles at a time at all.

you are woefully uninformed about the status of Aegis BMD. GMD is indeed kind of a shitshow but it is not the only part of our shield.


on topic--if NK makes a nuclear attack, it will be against SK. not the USA, not Japan.
---

China and South Korea would still have a buffer zone, just a radioactive one.

Nuclear Contengency
---

they would have to mail us their nukes, because they have no way of getting them to us otherwise

ManSpread posted...

north korea would go down
usa would be short a few nukes

---

The world always knows weeks before hand when north korea is gonna conduct a test. I doubt a nuclear missile would even be able to leave the ground before its shut down

and north korea would be stupid to aim its artillery at seoul. if they want to stand even the slightest chance of winning, they would be aiming at something more strategically beneficial like a military base
---

Number39 posted...

Won't shooting nukes out of the sky create an EMP and then we're back to the stone age?

no
---

SoundNetwork posted...

The world always knows weeks before hand when north korea is gonna conduct a test. I doubt a nuclear missile would even be able to leave the ground before its shut down

and north korea would be stupid to aim its artillery at seoul. if they want to stand even the slightest chance of winning, they would be aiming at something more strategically beneficial like a military base

their survival is based upon MAD
---

ManSpread posted...

north korea would go down
usa would be short a few nukes

I disagree. "A few" is a massive over-estimate.

Darkman124 posted...

SoundNetwork posted...

The world always knows weeks before hand when north korea is gonna conduct a test. I doubt a nuclear missile would even be able to leave the ground before its shut down

and north korea would be stupid to aim its artillery at seoul. if they want to stand even the slightest chance of winning, they would be aiming at something more strategically beneficial like a military base

their survival is based upon MAD

they haven't got to that point yet so their survival is based on bluffing atm
---

They invade us, drop a couple of nukes, we all die, The End.
---

Someone will get nuked or attacked

Then North Korea will be wiped off the map

but not before killing millions potentially.

that's it.
---

The danger is how quickly their nuclear/missile technology is improving. Their progress and viable production of more bombs has rapidly increased. Their long term threat is not a joke at all.

RIp Seoul
---

Voxwik posted...

The danger is how quickly their nuclear/missile technology is improving. Their progress and viable production of more bombs has rapidly increased. Their long term threat is not a joke at all.

We have more nukes than anyone else in the world. Our satellites can target anywhere on the planet and send nukes their. If they send one of their crappy nukes at us we can blow it out of the sky in 5 minutes and fire 20 more missiles right back
---

Voxwik posted...

The danger is how quickly their nuclear/missile technology is improving. Their progress and viable production of more bombs has rapidly increased. Their long term threat is not a joke at all.

They'll run out of food before they get enough nuclear material to be a real threat. I'm not saying that a nuke or two hitting any country is a good thing but they don't really have enough to make a "world ending" supply of nukes
---

buddyboigiru posted...

Voxwik posted...

The danger is how quickly their nuclear/missile technology is improving. Their progress and viable production of more bombs has rapidly increased. Their long term threat is not a joke at all.

They'll run out of food before they get enough nuclear material to be a real threat. I'm not saying that a nuke or two hitting any country is a good thing but they don't really have enough to make a "world ending" supply of nukes

Wish I kept a link but last I read is 50+ by 2020. And in response to the other post, the issue is not winning it's how much damage and instability they can cause if they go berserk.

Off topic a little bit but why didn't Japan intercept Enola Gay?

I read the flight time was 6 hours one way.

How far inland is Hiroshima?
---

I don't know why not but they didn't know the threat either.

I remember reading about it and they found out the city was destroyed when they sent a plane in to check after communications went silent. The thing I read was a statement/interview with the pilot that saw the ruins and reported back.

Voxwik posted...

I don't know why not but they didn't know the threat either.

I remember reading about it and they found out the city was destroyed when they sent a plane in to check after communications went silent. The thing I read was a statement/interview with the pilot that saw the ruins and reported back.

After the swarms of planes that firebombed the shit out Tokyo, two planes overhead in some backwater were assumed to be recon.