North Korea Pledges Nuclear Assault on USA

Billy, you are ignorant of the facts.

The real question is: What do you think FDR, Truman, or John Kennedy, i.e. any of the last real democrat presidents would have done with NK by now? Do you actually think any of those guys would have sat around jerking off pretending that a stated threat to nuke the United States hadn't happened??

Let see none of the president mention would jump into a war/conflict feet first when other means of dealing with a problem was still possible.

See Kennedy approached to the Cuba Military Crisis and his refusal to even bomb the missiles sites let alone invade Cuba.

We clearly have plenty of time to deal with any future North Korea nuclear/missile threats by others means then brute force.

Those threats we are seeing from the North seem to me to indicate what we and the rest of the world is now doing is hurting them otherwise there would be no reason for those threats in the first place.

Now if I was the President and did decide to use military force if would likely be of the nature of the Kennedy blockade not a bombings.

Stationing a few missile cruisers off their cost and knocking down any future long range rockets tests for example.

Hell I might see it I could get a third country to do that instead of using our own ships such as Japan that have as must or more skin in this game then we do at the moment or given the bad blood and history of Japan in that area of the world maybe some EU nation.

Be that as it may we have a lot of others resources to deal with the problem of North Korea.

Hopefully a solutions that does not result in a wave of millions of North Korean troops headed south right over our 30,000 or so tripwire troops on the border

There is no reliable defense to ICBMs.

[edit] EffectivenessMany still consider missile defense to be destabilizing.[37] French policy makers consider that the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and the doctrine of Mutual assured destruction to be the cornerstones of strategic stability. Some French analysts viewed missile defense as jeopardizing both the doctrine and the Treaty, as well as risking a new arms race.

Experts however question the precision of the system. All the experiments to develop and test MDS were scripted so far and nobody knows about their credibility in an actual war situation. Knowing the speed of these missiles, it's more difficult than hitting one bullet with another.[2]

Moreover, most French security experts doubted the technological feasibility of ballistic missile defense. Some think it is foolish to spend huge amounts of money on unproven technologies that lacked operational or political usefulness. Instead, the French defense policy community viewed missile defense merely as an American "economic weapon" used to defeat the Soviet Union and win the Cold War.[38]

Some are simply of the opinion that reliance on missile defense as an element of nuclear deterrence is wrong and that missile defense is a bust technically, and it encourages the proliferation of both nuclear and conventional weaponry instead of preventing such an increase from taking place.[39]

Critics of Missile defense also state that just as with nuclear weapons, the U.S. infatuation with missile defense will cause other nations to desire this expensive and destabilizing technology.[39]

Russia's top military officer has threatened to carry out a pre-emptive strike on U.S.-led NATO missile defense facilities in Eastern Europe if Washington goes ahead with its controversial plan to build a missile shield.[40] Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov also warned that talks between Moscow and Washington on the topic are "close to a dead end."[40] U.S. State Department special envoy Ellen Tauscher responded that neither country can afford another arms race.[40]

-- Wikipedia

Nonsense when you are talking about being near enough to engage a rocket in it first seconds of it boast stage as in right off the coast of North Korea.

That go even more for first generation rockets.

Any of the modern missile cruisers in the world should have no problem with shooting down North Korea rockets just after lift off.

Next I find it amusing that a full scale missile defense will not work argument with we will go to nuclear war threat if you dare to place an anti missile defense system into place!!!!!!!!

But once more we are not talking about a full defense system instead of just sitting off the coast and blowing out of the sky nice and slow missiles in their first few minutes of launch.

Ronny Raygun and Bush boy would in a heart beat.

Obama thinks there is...

Oh good! I thought he decided we didn't need any defense, so this is good news.

You two are a sad lot indeed and neither of you are willing to state what the hell you would do in his place concerning the North Korea nuclear program and the meaningless threat to engage the US in a nuclear war when so far all they done is get two devices to yield a few kilotons and a few rockets that can not carry such devices and fail far more often then they work.

Good news? No

Obama's idea of defense is to weaken the US military in such a way that knocks the US down a peg or two... he wants to level the playing field and make it more fair so that nobody needs much in the way of defensive capabilities. This fantasy of Obama's is not shared by enemies of the US.

If I were president I'd handle it just like Obama handled Benghazi. < **** that!

What would you do?

Plenty must what Obama is doing keep upping the economic pressure that seems to be working if those empty nuke threats are any indication.

Such threats are far from a sign of strength must more a sign of weakness.

My concerns as far as a nuclear threat in any case would be far more focus on Iran rather the North Korea.

Oh for the hell of it I might also interfere in a low key manner with both their rocket and bomb program such as for example doing a real life test on high power airborne laser anti ICBM prototype systems on their rocket launches.

With all the many failures they been having in their rocket program I been wondering if we had a hand in some of those failures.

But they are not the president Bill, and they have never strived to hold the office (as far as we know),and so they are under no compulsion to offer an alternative to a policy with which they disagree.

Come on now if you express unhappiness concerning a US government policy then it made no sense not to have opinions of what that policy should be instead.

I am unhappy about the government approach to this problem but I have not a clue what we could or should do instead?

Without some clue of what you would prefer the government to do your complain is kind of pointless.

If you recall, in the first Gulf war, the Patriot missiles were wholly ineffective in stopping the Iraqi missiles, despite disinformation from the military. Were there any missiles from, say, Russia, they would be mirved and it would be impossible to stop them. There have never been any tests of star wars that were truly successful.

Were NK of mind to really attack us, they would probably sneak a cargo container, housing the nuke, into the USA. Or they would merely sail a ship close to a USA port, and then detonate. There are many other ways they could fashion a successful attack.

You mean the world's premier war criminals.

Roger, all this time, here I was thinking you weren't one of those nutty fruitcakes that pisses his pants as soon as boogeyman is mentioned.

Let see they get a few kiloton device into one of our harbor and do as must harm/damage as the non-nuclear 1917 Halifax explosion that were due to the freighter Mont-Blanc blowing up with the force of 2.9 kiloton of force that ended up doing a number on the Halifax harbor and killing 2000 people.



Then we level their whole damn country and they gain what benefits in the hours it take to figure out what had happen and launch a large scale nuclear strike on them?

They do not have large cities killers and are highly unlikely to have them in any reasonable time frame.

They could killed far more Americans and South Koreans by sending their millions of troops south and not face a nuclear response.

Deluded too, aren't you, Roger?

I

That year was 1992 or so and since then the Patriot missiles have had many many cycles of updates since then next see the news as how well a must simpler system is working for the Israelities in dealing with short range missiles.