North Korea to Shoot Missile at Hawaii

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

Ok gents, let me chime in.

Firstly, the missile will most likely not be armed with a nuclear warhead, because they have very few and even if it was their last missile test was a failure. In the event that it is armed, the US Navy’s 7th fleet is in the region and fully capable of shooting the fucking POS missile platform down before it breaks out of the atmosphere.

We won’t retaliate with a nuclear strike, at least in my opinion. Why retaliate for an attack that was thwarted? If they can even hit Hawaii, and IF the weapon detonates, then I say make it a glass parkinglot, and even Obama wouldn’t be able to turn a deaf ear to the cries for vengeance.

In the event that we do counterattack, and the shit hits the fan in the Korean peninsula, 2 things will no doubt happen within the first day, if not hours after the declaration of war. 1) Most if not all US and S.Korean forces at the DMZ will be dead and rolled over and 2) Most of the inhabitants of Seoul will be dead, as the majority of N.Korea’s long range weapons are bore-sighted to that city.

Now if I was president, I’d say this. “You can shoot at us, but be prepared to see your entire country burn in nuclear fire! BIATCH!” and thow up my gang signs and whatnot.

22

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
hedo wrote:
It’s a test. Obama has failed at foreign policy and economic challenges to date. NK wants to get a slice of the pie. They are counting on a weak or nonexistent response. I don’t think they will be disappointed. Obama will “watch it with great concern” and may even ramp up his adjectives but in the end he is a weak leader and will do nothing.

What should the response be from a strong leader of a powerful nation. “Don’t launch a missile towards us or you will be attacked”. No compromise just the CERTAINTY of a response. At this point they are guessing the response will be weak or anemic so they are sending us a big FU.

While I agree that if that happened, we shouldn’t do nothing, what would you propose we do? We can’t shift all the troops from Germany and the Middle East over there, so… put other soldiers there? Strikes with missiles?[/quote]

I don’t think you attack a strong opponent who clearly states his intentions. You attack those you think you can beat and gives you and ambiguous feeling about a response.

My response would go something along the lines of: Launch a missile towards us and we will respond with overwhelming force. Want to bet who’s missile is more likely to hit it’s target and who has figured out how to mount warheads to them.

As for the NK army and military responses I wouldn’t count on it. First of all NK, like the Iraqi army was, is perceived as this powerful army populated by super soldiers. It isn’t. I doubt if the NK’s have enough fuel to sustain a 2 day offensive. They don’t have the time or money to train and the last time they saw action was 1953.

Their equipment is old and outdated by at least 30 years and my guess is counter battery fire by US and SK forces will negate the artillery they have within 12 hours. Basically whatever they fire will be destroyed by the second or third round. Do they want to try a massed armor and infantry assault against US and SK forces…hell no. They would be ground out by cluster weapons and air bursting anti-tank munitions.

If I thought talking would work I’d support it but we’ve been talking for years and we are being played as fools. These fucks are stating they are going to TARGET a US state. WTF. I would even go as far as destroying their missile on the launch pad with a ballistic missile using a conventional warhead. Warn the Chinese about 10 minutes in advance so as not to spook them too much. Actually if it does spook them so much the better.

23

perhaps this is a bluff, and with those reporters they captured they are attempting to assert their relevance (which is debatable) in global politics. just a thought.

24

[quote]Therizza wrote:
perhaps this is a bluff, and with those reporters they captured they are attempting to assert their relevance (which is debatable) in global politics. just a thought.[/quote]

Probable. The question is the intension behind the bluff. Are they just looking for attention or are they trying to force escalation. If we were talking about a leader with all his marbles, I wouldn’t be too concerned. Who knows what this crazy fuck wants us to do. A psychotherapist may be more qualified to assess the situation and plan a course of action than a military general.

25

Why are people talking about nukes, when the article says it was the same ballistic (not nuclear) missile that NK launched three years ago on July 4, and that failed within seconds after the launch? And if this is a real possibility, why is it only covered at comcast and not at any of the major news sites like CNN?

26

[quote]forlife wrote:
Why are people talking about nukes, when the article says it was the same ballistic (not nuclear) missile that NK launched three years ago on July 4, and that failed within seconds after the launch? And if this is a real possibility, why is it only covered at comcast and not at any of the major news sites like CNN?[/quote]

Becuase Comcast is the new AP. Get with times old man.

27

Well back in 1994 or thereabouts they made similar military threats, namely stating they had armed short range missiles aimed at American and S.Korean military bases and facilities. I know because I was there, saw the Patriot missile systems, pretty fucking scary. But nothing happened, and if I were a betting man, I’d put money on the fact that nothing will happen now. All N.Korea does is make a fuss, and extort the US for money and food.

Besides, we’ll probably shoot the missile down, or Japan will. Then run a train on Kim Jong-Il’s mother

28

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Becuase Comcast is the new AP. Get with times old man.[/quote]

I saw it was from AP, but if it was a credible threat don’t you think the major news channels like CNN would have picked it up by now?

29

KJI is a wacko, no doubt about it. I wouldn’t put anything past him.

30

I heard about it on fox last night so there

31

Heh.

32

I bet the obama administration has a strongly worded letter just waiting to go to the UN. Just you wait you N.koreans! We’ll call you names if you launch a missile…

33

[quote]pat wrote:
I bet the obama administration has a strongly worded letter just waiting to go to the UN. Just you wait you N.koreans! We’ll call you names if you launch a missile…[/quote]

Ask those dead pirates about Obama’s strongly worded letters.

If shit hits the fan, he will not stand in the way of the correct action.

34

[quote]hedo wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
hedo wrote:
It’s a test. Obama has failed at foreign policy and economic challenges to date. NK wants to get a slice of the pie. They are counting on a weak or nonexistent response. I don’t think they will be disappointed. Obama will “watch it with great concern” and may even ramp up his adjectives but in the end he is a weak leader and will do nothing.

What should the response be from a strong leader of a powerful nation. “Don’t launch a missile towards us or you will be attacked”. No compromise just the CERTAINTY of a response. At this point they are guessing the response will be weak or anemic so they are sending us a big FU.

While I agree that if that happened, we shouldn’t do nothing, what would you propose we do? We can’t shift all the troops from Germany and the Middle East over there, so… put other soldiers there? Strikes with missiles?

I don’t think you attack a strong opponent who clearly states his intentions. You attack those you think you can beat and gives you and ambiguous feeling about a response.

My response would go something along the lines of: Launch a missile towards us and we will respond with overwhelming force. Want to bet who’s missile is more likely to hit it’s target and who has figured out how to mount warheads to them.

As for the NK army and military responses I wouldn’t count on it. First of all NK, like the Iraqi army was, is perceived as this powerful army populated by super soldiers. It isn’t. I doubt if the NK’s have enough fuel to sustain a 2 day offensive. They don’t have the time or money to train and the last time they saw action was 1953. Their equipment is old and outdated by at least 30 years and my guess is counter battery fire by US and SK forces will negate the artillery they have within 12 hours. Basically whatever they fire will be destroyed by the second or third round. Do they want to try a massed armor and infantry assault against US and SK forces…hell no. They would be ground out by cluster weapons and air bursting anti-tank munitions.

If I thought talking would work I’d support it but we’ve been talking for years and we are being played as fools. These fucks are stating they are going to TARGET a US state. WTF. I would even go as far as destroying their missile on the launch pad with a ballistic missile using a conventional warhead. Warn the Chinese about 10 minutes in advance so as not to spook them too much. Actually if it does spook them so much the better. [/quote]

In my opinion, if a missile leaves the launch pad aimed at a US state, the response must be quick and brutal. That site should be taken out, and military installations should be destroyed.

Similar to what Hedo says, I can see a complete annihilation of their military’s communication networks within 48 hours, making them effectively blind and deaf. I could also see massive defections from their army should US troops cross the 38th parallel.

The gap in technology between the two of us is far, far wider than it was in 1950. This fight would not be a close one. They’d be rolling out old Soviet tanks against our brand new, battle tested stuff, and depending on their Air Force to compete with America’s naval power and the planes rolling off of American carriers.

Say what you want about America, but when it comes to military might, we are unequaled, even without our nuclear arsenal.

I also do not foresee a guerilla campaign in the event of a war… I see more like when East and West Germany reunited.

Either way I hope it doesn’t come to it.

35

Damn that Obama, he got us in this scrape in Iraq and that scrape in Afghanistan, now we are spread too thin to get North Korea. And that Kim bastard knows it. Damn Obama

36

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Damn that Obama, he got us in this scrape in Iraq and that scrape in Afghanistan, now we are spread too thin to get North Korea. And that Kim bastard knows it. Damn Obama[/quote]

This worries me too. If something happens with NK, we will be involved in three engagements at once. Considering how burden we are with paying for two wars, I wonder how a third would effect us.

37

You guys are blowing this way out of proportion for a chance to dig at Obama. The article itself states that the missle has a 4,000 range, and Hawaii is 4,500 miles away. This is all just posturing, the same way that Venezuela’s naval maneuvers were posturing, or inviting Russian long range bombers was posturing.

Unfortunately we are too tightly bound by the U.N. and if we did destroy the missile launch site, we would be seen as the aggressors because the missile poses no real threat. It would be a different matter if the missile had a 5,000 mile range, but it doesn’t, so for now we cannot justifiably do anything.

If the military brass actually thought that NK was a threat, do you think they would hesitate in making a case? We’ve already seen that a war can be sold against a soft target, yet somehow this supposed major threat is being ignored by the pentagon?

38

noones gonna fire anything, you can shoot missiles down no problem. and the success rate of a protracted engagement against us is 0%. thats why they won’t start shit. now, if they were to shoot it, and somehow Hawaii takes it, fuck em all. i say murder every last one of those bastards. the ones who are holding guns at least.

but the funny thing is you all get scared about another deployment of US forces in another “war”. lol this conflict would end as quickly as it started. the S.Koreans wouldn’t even need U.S. boots on ground, and we would just sit back and launch sortie after sortie, tomahawk after tomahawk, like Gulf War 1. they would probably capitulate after running out of what little fuel and ammunition they still have. it would be like fighting a retard

for what it’s worth, we should just pull out of South Korea, as we pay for many of their defense systems, while they save that money and reinvest it in their own country. Imagine if we had someone else paying for our military! O yea, and they probably will never unite because, as shown in Germany, their economy took a hit for a while when merging. And North Korea has nowhere near the capabilities East Germany had at the time of reunification. just a thought

39

[quote]borrek wrote:
You guys are blowing this way out of proportion for a chance to dig at Obama. The article itself states that the missle has a 4,000 range, and Hawaii is 4,500 miles away. This is all just posturing, the same way that Venezuela’s naval maneuvers were posturing, or inviting Russian long range bombers was posturing.

Unfortunately we are too tightly bound by the U.N. and if we did destroy the missile launch site, we would be seen as the aggressors because the missile poses no real threat. It would be a different matter if the missile had a 5,000 mile range, but it doesn’t, so for now we cannot justifiably do anything.

If the military brass actually thought that NK was a threat, do you think they would hesitate in making a case? We’ve already seen that a war can be sold against a soft target, yet somehow this supposed major threat is being ignored by the pentagon?[/quote]

I Hope you are right, I think if MK got mad at America , SK would pay the price

40

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I Hope you are right, I think if MK got mad at America , SK would pay the price

[/quote]
pittbull, you just revealed how little you know about our probable actions during any conflict with N.Korea and the extreme capabilities of our S.Korean allies.