My answer to What would happen if the USA dropped a large non nuclear bomb on Kim Jong un while he was in his capit…
Answer by Abbey Laurel-Smith:
Without doubt, it would be a huge mistake. And the biggest of the century on our part! Because North Korea would strategically retaliate by targeting three key areas in the U.S. FNSS (for national security sake) would not tell you what areas, but it is a commmon knowledge (to those who need to know only) that if you hit these areas in the United States (with certain air-borne weapons, at certain time of the year) you’ll effectively take out more than two third of the homeland United States.
Worst fear is, regardless of asset placement and technology, defensive systems are equipments at the end of the day, and regardless of manpower and maintenance, these equipments are known to be (degradably) susceptible to natural elements during these set of months.
This security hole was first revealed by a 1970 satellite accident in Canada. There had been a couple more (accidents exposing space security loopholes) after that… Frankly speaking we have no perfect answer to an attack if North Korea decides to respond to a nuclear attack on it’s capital.
It is also well known that:
- North Korea’s missile brigade it’s leaders are aware of this susceptibility, and have in the past choose to carry out certain tests in and between these known periods.
- Taking Kim Jong Un (and his entire family) out will not solve the problem.
- North Korea is far more prepared for a nuke war than any country on earth. And America is the least unprepared for an attack on it’s soil, and on it’s civilian population. That is why current set of (mordern) weapons in Asia and India are focusing on being faster than the speed of light. Meaning: target and bombard the homeland U.S. first, whilst containing her assault force.
- North Korea (despite loss of innocent civillians) could survive an attack on it’s capital.
- North Korea’s weapons and defensive systems are not just concentrated around Pyongyang alone, they are strategically dispersed all over the peninsula.
- North Korea has different grid system for it’s regions, and another set of different ones for certain key military facilities, so, we’ll need to launch at least fifty nukes or more (all at once) to take them out. Meaning, we either overwhelm them or be overwhelmed. It also means knocking off almost ten million heads before they get us.
Now why would you want to risk it all for an ally?
Action taking so far to remove the mindset of the poster of this questioner has been frustrated by rigid admin and entrenched culture of “being the best”:
- That is why Generals Eric Shinseki and Stanley McChyristal started talking about the need to change the nature of our military command by bringing it’s structure into the 21st century.
- In response to the observations of these two Generals, Obama performed a couple of defensive tests and ended up firing a lot of (lackey) Generals in the military – so as to accommodate new thinkers like McChyristal. But McChyristal mis-stepped… and all Obama could do for him was to ask the Congress for a promotion to the rank of General (as a reward for his services to the country)
Problem today is:
- all fired Generals (by Obama) ganged up to support TRUMP. So we are back in the same old mode of keeping to the old and well tested means. I will not mention names, but will suggest googling the list of these fired Generals, if in doubt.
As said, it would be a huge mistake. All North Korea need do is launch a biological weapon (through Korean nail and foot massage parlors – a cheeky example to start with) or an air-borne chemical attack – and we are toast.