What if scenario (nukes)

[jim brown]

What if...Kim Jong In lobs a nuke at Guam? What is an acceptable Trump response? What if he misses by 100 miles? (which I think is entirely possible) Same response?

[unclejr]

On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 8:20:11 AM UTC-5, jim brown wrote:
> What if...Kim Jong In lobs a nuke at Guam? What is an acceptable Trump response? What if he misses by 100 miles? (which I think is entirely possible) Same response?

I don't know what the correct response would be, but intent is intent. If NK fires a nuke at Guam, whether it misses or hits its mark, the response should be the same.

[wolfie]

"jim brown" wrote

> What if...Kim Jong In lobs a nuke at Guam? What is an
> acceptable Trump response? What if he misses by 100
> miles? (which I think is entirely possible) Same response?

if NK starts a war, they'll get a war. It's the way it's always
been. US nuclear doctrine has always been eye for an eye;
you nuke us or an ally, we nuke back. Miss or not.

The issue with NK and Dolt 45's "overwhelming response"
is the fallout this time of year goes over China. And not
just their territory, one of their major rice growing territories.
They're likely to take anything non-proportional personally.

[GrtArtiste]

On 8/12/2017 9:20 AM, jim brown wrote:
> What if...Kim Jong In lobs a nuke at Guam? What is an acceptable Trump response? What if he misses by 100 miles? (which I think is entirely possible) Same response?
>

Option #1...Launch the nukes. I personally hate this option, but if a
nuke is launched at U.S. territory or that of an ally...is there any
other choice? Trouble is, Kim may be crazy but not stupid. He may be
hiding out in the hinterland and need to be hunted down. He may not care
if his Cap City gets burned down as long as he isn't there to burn with
it. Our friends in the region will also have to deal with radiation
problems afterwards...and they won't be happy.

Option #2...the non-nuke option. Launch every last cruise missile
available and do as much damage possible to military airfields, bridges
on roads leading south, the artillery that is in range of Seoul, oil and
electric infrastructure. Then, send in the bombers to get whatever
targets remain. If Dolt 45 chooses this, he better go all in because his
previous blustery comments will prove him to be a fool and a liar if he
doesn't (as if any proof is needed).

GrtArtiste

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 06:20:07 -0700 (PDT), jim brown
<jimbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>What if...Kim Jong In lobs a nuke at Guam? What is an acceptable Trump response? What if he misses by 100 miles? (which I think is entirely possible) Same response?

Quit crowing like a bull rooster.

Test our anti-missile defense system by destroying any missiles fired
in the direction of the US or allies.

If that fails darkstar North Korea with non-nukes.

Hugh

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[RoddyMcCorley]

+1
That is probably the most sensible approach.

--
False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul
with evil.

Pennsylvania - Tá sé difriúil anseo.

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

I think you have to go dresden on pyongyang, and follow that up with a targeted bombing campaign against their military capabilities - including their leadership.

Use back channels to deal with china - no nukes ie fallout in your region, but you're gonna just look the other way while we end this regime and cripple their country's military capabilities.

Most of the normal folks in n korea - the farmers - are about as culpable here as hostages during a bank robbery. I think there's a chance here that what we tried in Iraq - cutting the head off the beast - might actually work pretty well - mostly because I don't know that the current leadership is suppressing even more radical elements in n korea - could be wrong.

Cheers.

[GrtArtiste]

I dunno. If any of the leadership survives long enough to communicate
with the farmers (or anyone else), they will never admit that Kim fired
the first shot. The leadership will claim the U.S. struck first and the
leadership will be believed, thereby validating all the propaganda that
has been spewed since the truce. I'm not suggesting killing as many as
possible, but those who survive will never be anything but unfriendly.

GrtArtiste

[Ken Olson]

Their Southern cousins will have to help them learn the truth. Similar
to Germany, just more intense.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 12:23:03 -0700 (PDT), dotsla...@gmail.com
wrote:

>I think you have to go dresden on pyongyang, and follow that up with a targ=
>eted bombing campaign against their military capabilities - including their=
> leadership.

Look no further back than 1945 for your answer. If attacked, destroy
anything and anybody. It made Japan a good friend.

"Attacked" is a variable and based on the incident.

[Some dued]

Dropping nukes on Japan was different, we weren't yet cognizant of the level of destruction that would result if everyone that had nuclear weapons used them routinely.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 17:52:15 -0700 (PDT), Some dued
<theodo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Dropping nukes on Japan was different, we weren't yet cognizant of the level of destruction that would result if everyone that had nuclear weapons used them routinely.

Maybe you need to reread what I said. I did not mention using nukes.
The fallout problem for other countries should be sufficient deterrent
to prevent using them on NK - under the present circumstances.

Nukes were not used on Tokyo and I saw Tokyo in 1945. There wasn't
much left above ground - and not very many young men walking the
streets.

Where is the Iraqi guy now?

[wolfie]

"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote

> Where is the Iraqi guy now?

Wherever he is, he's probably berating himself for
not having a nuclear power that could cripple the US
as an ally like that guy in NK does.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

Then maybe the solution is to join the NK guy with the Iraqi guy.
Berate loves company.