Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fifty-three year old nuclear missile accident revealed

rapidcityjournal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 250 posts

Re: Fifty-three year old nuclear missile accident revealed

#221

Post by wildmusings »

Brybry wrote: post #207
PostOnce wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have the capability to annihilate as much of NK as we need to prevent a counterattack ...from North Korea If we start launching nukes in the direction of NK, how does China know it's going to stop in NK and not hit them? Do we call them up first? Then what do they say? Is it totally out of the question that China would panic (or reason?) and counterattack? NK doesn't exist in a vacuum, and in fact NK wouldn't ex…

The US wouldn't launch ICBMs at NK. They would be dropped from bombers or launched from subs/ships. Most likely bombers though, which is what all of the saber rattling in the news with B52s/B1s has been about. Also, China has a defense treaty with NK and has very publicly stated that it will honor its treaty unless NK strikes first. Personally, I don't think nuking North Korea would even be an effective use of resour…

Precision strikes could probably take out their nuclear and missile program, and much of the top leadership, and probably cause the regime to eventually collapse. The problem is their artillery, spread throughout the south of the country, that poses a major threat to South Korea.

Re: Fifty-three year old nuclear missile accident revealed

#222

Post by blowski »

jpatokal wrote: post #181
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what would Ukraine have done if they had nukes? Nuked the enemy troops in the Crimaea, with their own population in the way? Or bomb some Russian city and start a nuclear war ...against the second larges nuclear power? Honestly, use of nuclear weapons just sounds like pure madness, no matter what the threat one is under. I mean, unless we're talking about an alien invasion (and I'm not impartial to keeping around…

The difference is deterrence: Russia would have thought twice before invading a nuclear-armed neighbour.

Thought twice, and then done the same thing anyway.

Re: Fifty-three year old nuclear missile accident revealed

#223

Post by wildmusings »

kbenson wrote: post #171
dogma1138 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again you are missing the point NK has about “11,000” cannons pointed at Seoul these are fixed installations capable of being destroyed in a conventional preemptive strike before anyone gets the order to fire. By the time it would take China to detect a US attack, figure out what to do, deliver a message to the NK leadership and that message can be relayed to the field there won’t be many canons left. I think you don…

What you say is directly contradicted by the quoted words of a retired Major General in the article I previously cited. If you want to convince you me you are more knowledgeable or truthful than what was presented there, you'll need to cite some source. No offense, but when it comes to matters of military action, I'm going to take the word of someone with is or was relatively high in the military over a pseudo-anonym…

I think it’s fair to assume that such answers assume the US isn’t willing to preemptively nuke an entire southern swath of North Korea. If we are, and Trump is trying very hard to at least pretend that we are, it’s a totally different ballgame.

Re: Fifty-three year old nuclear missile accident revealed

#224

Post by Lordarminius »

blowski wrote: post #222
jpatokal wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is deterrence: Russia would have thought twice before invading a nuclear-armed neighbour.

Thought twice, and then done the same thing anyway.

Nope. There is no precedent for invading a nuclear armed state. So much can go wrong so fast that diplomacy is always preferred to war. Isn't it wonderful what a little nuclear leverage can do for you ?

Re: Fifty-three year old nuclear missile accident revealed

#225

Post by 13of40 »

jnwatson wrote: post #220
hedora wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ths US population lives down-wind of China. I’m guessing the demand for more nuclear fallout will be at an all-time low after dozens of US cities are nuked. Also, I’ve seen MASH. The US’s pointless war was as responsible for North Korea as anything else. Anyway, I really doubt there will ever be significant popular demand for nuclear war.

Korea was a UN action.

Started by the Communist north.

Edit: Thanks for the downvote, Stranger. Here's a citation. http://www.history.com/topics/korean-war

Re: Fifty-three year old nuclear missile accident revealed

#226

Post by Animats »

krallja wrote: post #218
Animats wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lightning bolt, maybe. Static electricity, no way. The detonators used are exploding-wire devices. They're just hugely overloaded resistors.[1] Regular detonators have a primary explosive which is triggered by a modest electric pulse. The primary explosive detonates and its energy detonates the secondary explosive. Those can go off by accident, cook off, etc. The ones used in nuclear weapons are just inert wires. Wit…

What design was used for bombing Nagasaki?

Plutonium implosion bomb.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Man

Re: Fifty-three year old nuclear missile accident revealed

#227

Post by gonzo »

hedora wrote: post #215
adventured wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That depends on the context. If the US loses one city, that'll be an extreme tragedy that the US can absorb, while obliterating NK in response. If the US loses its top dozen (or more) cities in a nuclear exchange with North Korea, there's no scenario under which the American public won't demand retribution against the enabling power/s that made that outcome possible. China would be guaranteed to get nuked as a conseq…

Ths US population lives down-wind of China. I’m guessing the demand for more nuclear fallout will be at an all-time low after dozens of US cities are nuked. Also, I’ve seen MASH. The US’s pointless war was as responsible for North Korea as anything else. Anyway, I really doubt there will ever be significant popular demand for nuclear war.

> Also, I’ve seen MASH.

MASH the film or MASH the TV series? Both are comedies, and both are loosely based on “MASH: A Novel About Three Army Doctors”, which is a memoir.

Re: Fifty-three year old nuclear missile accident revealed

#228

Post by nyolfen »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #157
nyolfen wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Also, what was he going to do with one? Threaten the US with one if the internal rebellions don't stop? Threaten to nuke his own people? prevent the US from intervening/preventing him from putting down internal rebellions. the risk of nuclear escalation gives you a much greater license to do things that fly in the face of international conventions.

I think the question is "how would he do all this"? Realistically speaking, if you can't hit your enemy because they're too far for your nuclear weapons and the only opportunity you have to hit them is if they invade your territory (in which case you're nuking yourself) then having nuclear weapons is not much more of a deterrent than threatening suicide: you're just hoping your opponent will take pity on you.

there are plenty of creative avenues that the weight of existential risk combined with the ability to vaporize a few square miles gives you. read about the samson option.

Re: Fifty-three year old nuclear missile accident revealed

#229

Post by Brybry »

wildmusings wrote: post #221
Brybry wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US wouldn't launch ICBMs at NK. They would be dropped from bombers or launched from subs/ships. Most likely bombers though, which is what all of the saber rattling in the news with B52s/B1s has been about. Also, China has a defense treaty with NK and has very publicly stated that it will honor its treaty unless NK strikes first. Personally, I don't think nuking North Korea would even be an effective use of resour…

Precision strikes could probably take out their nuclear and missile program, and much of the top leadership, and probably cause the regime to eventually collapse. The problem is their artillery, spread throughout the south of the country, that poses a major threat to South Korea.

Agreed. And which was the stated reason for the Clinton administration not bombing North Korea and why I find it weird that North Korea has pushed the nuclear weapon issue.

If North Korea can kill tens of thousands of people in Seoul in a few minutes with just artillery and no one wants to be responsible for that... then why do they feel the need for nukes?

Re: Fifty-three year old nuclear missile accident revealed

#230

Post by wildmusings »

Brybry wrote: post #229
wildmusings wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precision strikes could probably take out their nuclear and missile program, and much of the top leadership, and probably cause the regime to eventually collapse. The problem is their artillery, spread throughout the south of the country, that poses a major threat to South Korea.

Agreed. And which was the stated reason for the Clinton administration not bombing North Korea and why I find it weird that North Korea has pushed the nuclear weapon issue. If North Korea can kill tens of thousands of people in Seoul in a few minutes with just artillery and no one wants to be responsible for that... then why do they feel the need for nukes?

One can envision a world where the US accepts South Korean losses as acceptable, if unfortunate. But I don’t think we would ever accept the loss of an American city.
Post reply on HN