CIA says North Korea can hit US

[Vendetta]

This mess just got kicked up a notch.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/12/us.nkorea/index.html

:(

[edweird]

:mad: < this is me ... not being surprised

[Will Wood]

Just because they HAVE it doesn't mean they can HIT us. Granted, the factor of having something that can hit, makes a difference in how things will be handled.

[Thordic]

Most likely the missile would end up in the ocean somewhere, but it makes me glad I live on the east coast.

To anyone who lives in California, us East Coasters will be sure to avenge your post-nuclear ashes! :)

[Vendetta]

:eek: <- might be more appropriate.

The United States is a pretty BIG target. Remember close counts in horseshoes, hand granades, and thermo-nuclear weapons.

[Trunnion]

range is only one factor. reliability and the accuracy of the guidance systems are others that are important. while being able to reach us becomes a serious threat, that doesn't garuntee that the weapon will hit us. i've noticed alot of people wondering why we're handling the N. Korean problme differently than the Iraq problem, but the answer seems pretty obvious to me: Korea has nukes.

[langrage]

Korea has not yet tested these missiles. It is also believed that if they do have nuclear capabilities, that they may only have one or two wars heads. If Korea sends the only two missiles they have towards the US and neither one hits they really don’t have much left to fall back on. I don’t believe Korea would take a chance and start a war with this many limitations.

By the time they do have these capabilites, hopefully we can solve this diplomaticly

[Automaggin2]

Korea Definatly has more hten 2 warheads, and they DO have th capability to hit us. I talked to my uncle who is a FBI agent and ex-A 10 pilot and he said NKorea has a the capability to do some major destruction

[oldsoldier]

Originally posted by Thordic
Most likely the missile would end up in the ocean somewhere, but it makes me glad I live on the east coast.

To anyone who lives in California, us East Coasters will be sure to avenge your post-nuclear ashes! :)

Except, of course, California...we dont really like them anyway. ;)

[logamus]

north korea does pose a significant threat to the security of north america. the fact that they dont have gobs of nukes doesnt mean they cant vaporize los angles. its prolly a good thing the presidents missle defense plan is going ahead as it was designed for exactly this, very few missles from a rogue state. i would be shocked if north korea ever launched a nuclear missle because they would know by pressing the red button they all would die in a matter of minutes when the us launches a counter strike. i personally feel like its time to rachet up the pressure on north korea. its better to deal with this problem now then wait until they have a dozen nukes and start selling them off.

[Vendetta]

The missile defense thing, doesn't work yet. Right now its like shooting at the paintballs coming at you with your own. You may get lucky and hit one, but I doubt it.

[Automaggin2]

They have done succesful testing on the missile defense program, but it is extremly buggy

[Vendetta]

Some successful tests knowing where and when a missle is shot.

I know you all won't like this, but I think the money would be better spent in prevention. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." If we were to help these countries more they would not want to destroy us. "You don't bite the hand that feeds you."
I love proverbs.:D

[langrage]

Korea Definatly has more hten 2 warheads

Did you read the article? It even states at most they have 2. Remeber last year when they stated they had a nuke and then we found out they didn't. Any number we throw out there is pure speculation. Granted the thought of them having one is issue enough to be concerned but why would any country start a war they can't win? They could hit Hawaii, Alaska and may be West coast america but there would still be enough America to defeat them. America is the only country to use a weapon of mass destruction.

[Vendetta]

why would any country start a war they can't win?

Desperation. Those people are starving.

[langrage]

maybe they should concentrate on feeding their people instead of starting wars:rolleyes:

[Trunnion]

just because they have the weapon doesn't mean they'll use it as a preemptive strike. they could keep them until they start losing a potential war and use them as bargaining chips. and who's to say they will only use them as strategic weapons? they could use them in a tactical capacity, and fire the weapons at our soldiers on the ground. just becuase they have long range missiles doesn't mean they'll use them in that capacity

[Collegeboy]

Of Course the CIA would say so.

[battlegroup]

Originally posted by Trunnion
i've noticed alot of people wondering why we're handling the N. Korean problme differently than the Iraq problem, but the answer seems pretty obvious to me: Korea has nukes.

I think it's more like: North Korea has done this before and diplomacy worked then, lets try that first. Diplomacy has not worked with Iraq and we have moved on to the next step.

[Kevmaster]

Originally posted by Vendetta
If we were to help these countries more they would not want to destroy us. "You don't bite the hand that feeds you."

You know, the US gives 65% or there abouts of ALL international food aid to hte world (including TONS food to NKorea & Iraq--a little less friendly giving though with Iraq). Id say everyone still wants to bite the hand that feeds the world



I dont foresee a nuclear attack by NK any time soon. They know full well that a single nuke launched on ANY country would result in their demise. I feel the biggest issue is that China, their strongest ally, MUST tell them to stop. We are the bad guys if you ask them. their soldiers are told that we will suck their blood if they are captured. China, however, telling them to stop this crazy game would impress upon them that the whole world does believe they need to stop their maddness. However, China is blaking at this and is actaully supplying them with necessary materials to build up their reactor and to process the spent plutonium. The only positive light I can see is that the IAEA has voted, 31-0, that NK is in violation if international law and has refered it to our friends at hte UN Security Council. Yippy! The UN can screw us on another country

[Kevmaster]

Originally posted by battlegroup
Diplomacy has not worked with Iraq and we have moved on to the next step.


Heres my only problem with diplomacy. In 1994, they agreed to stop their plant, stop their nukes and we would give them power. We agreed to it, they agreed to it. for 8 years the two of us held up our ends. They then broke it off and started a nuke program. In return, we stopped our end of the bargin. Now, they want the same agreement from 1994 AND A NON AGRESSION TREATY. My problem is that what is to stop them in 5 more years for asking for something else on top of the 1994 and the non agression treaty? NOTHING!

It goes back to the children's story...if you give a mouse a cookie, hes gunna want a glass of milk

[mag-hatter]

this is why bush and his daddy wanted to create a missle defence system...that works. screw the left, i say we build it.

[FreshmanBob]

Just because they have them doesnt mean they'll use them. N. Korea launches 1 at us, we'll send about 50 at them. It would be suicide and they would all be dead VERY quickly, thats just how it works. It makes 0 sense for them to use nukes, but of course the media will make it seem like they just might.

[mag-hatter]

well the media got that impression because THEY ACTUALLY SAID THEY WOULD USE THEM!!!!!!!!!!!

sorry about that, but it gets my dander up when i start talking about these sob's.

[rhetor22]

and also, N. Korea lacks the ability to pick out worthy targets. They would most likely target "the west coast" for lack of better precision. Although a nuke would be devastating, what would be worse is the 4 headed donkeys they'll have after we're done. Then the enviornmentalists will be angry at them for being a country that gets no sunlight and has scarred soil.

[SpongeBobSquarePants]

I think that we can take care of our selfs as long as we arnt hit. From what I heard at one time we had enough, nukes, bombs, etc for each person in the US to have 10,000 of tnt a piece.

[Kevmaster]

Theyve threatened "horrible consequences" if the US strikes them and theyve threatened that UN sanctions would be as good as a declaration of war....

[Johnny_Reb]

Trust me NK wont use the nukes. We're far bigger and would shake off a nuke attack and send some towards them. But if we use nukes theres a chance we might hurt china and skorea a lil too. Go to a globe and put a dime on JUST NK as youll see it will damage other countries as well.

[mag-hatter]

jreb-if we use low yeild nukes (read the sum of all fears, not the movie it explaines nukes well), then we could avoid hurting other nations, BUT, that is a no no in this world of humanitarians. if it was up to me, iraq, iran, saudi arabia, france, north korea, and china would be ashes in the wind :D HAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Smoke]

Yeah, I agree. NK's a alot smarter than Iraqies, so I think they know that if they nuked us, they would be a smoldering crater.

[Kevmaster]

but because they are smarter, and because the none the less have nukes, we cant get them backed into a corner and they have a HUGE negotiating piece at the table

[Rooster]

They don't have the warhead technology to actually arm said missle, and they don't have a the guidence to garuntee a meaningful hit.

Its time to be concerned, but not paniced

[edweird]

its been a while since I chimed in again here... but for you accuracy naysayers; A guidance section is a guidance section...

take it from the guy that knows airmunitions. If they have a rocket booster that can loft it high enough the guidance is the easy part. Even if they did launch it vs us we would not wait for it to dud out before launching our own return volley of mixed munitions, regardless if the North Korean warhead was nuclear or full of stuffed animals.

At least with the arms race with the old soviet union we were both "superpowers" with much to lose. Nuclear Deterance works, but North Korea is running out of reasons not to instigate MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) on Big Brother USA

[battlegroup]

Unfortunately MAD requires enough nukes to detroy the whole country. It will take NK many, many years to come up with that many nukes. We on the other hand could nuke the entire world several times over!

[Kevmaster]

Originally posted by Rooster
They don't have the warhead technology to actually arm said missle, and they don't have a the guidence to garuntee a meaningful hit.

IF a warhead landed anywhere on the west coast it would be catastrophic. Hell, if it was "lucky" enough to strike within 20 miles of LA, Seattle, SF, SD, Oakland, Sacramento, Portland or many other places, there would be millions of casualties. If it were to just strike the open CA land, there would still be ten times as many deaths as WTC

[einhander619]

I'm with mag-hatter on this one. It's a good thing I'm not president, because if I was all the countries he listed would be smoldering craters. All this slap-and-tickle we've been playing with NATO, the UN, and even liberal left wing america has seriously undermined america's ability to "flex nuts," so to speak. Now don't get me wrong, I'm against the war that will happen in Iraq(but not the war that NEEDS to happen.) But in this age, diplomacy is dead, negotiations should be carried out down the barrel of a gun. I'm afraid a whole lot of people are going to die before the rest of the world gets the message. I live in Portland, so the idea of being nuked doesn't sit well with me. I'd hope that if they shoot so much as a bottle rocket in our direction that W(who is only unintelligent to the unintelligent) presses the button.

[battlegroup]

Originally posted by Kevmaster


IF a warhead landed anywhere on the west coast it would be catastrophic. Hell, if it was "lucky" enough to strike within 20 miles of LA, Seattle, SF, SD, Oakland, Sacramento, Portland or many other places, there would be millions of casualties. If it were to just strike the open CA land, there would still be ten times as many deaths as WTC

I'm not sure of the strength of Korea's Nukes. I don't know if they are kilo-ton, or mega-ton but I know they aren't as strong as ours. A 20 mile hit will cause major problems But not as many deaths as you might think. It'll still be bad though.

[Kevmaster]

I know they arnt as strong as our nukes, but the suburbs of those citys extend so far. I haev to imagine that those hits would damage is irreprably