abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
Hi! I am not here on pete's side or Trump in general (my posting history can easily confirm this) I am just here to clear up misconceptions.
Facilities deep in mountains are no problem at all. The SLBM MIRV's are designed to cope with that. The basic doctrine is the first MIRV penetrates before detonating, followed by a second MIRV a few blinks later for hardened, buried target destruction.
that assumes we know where they all are - but we don't even know how many they have, led alone where they might all be positioned. and my understanding is that they also have mobile launchers - unless you can confirm that's not the case.
anyways, to be clear, the idea of making North Korea simply cease to exist is nothing but an idle fantasy, and in any case, their conventional means of retaliation are they can hit back with is more than bad enough:
"If the US is worried North Korea might make the first move, though, it could launch a preemptive surgical strike on North Korea. It would certainly do damage to the country’s missile and nuclear programs. But North Korea would retaliate, imperiling the safety of US allies South Korea and Japan.
Pyongyang has the world’s largest artillery arsenal at its disposal, with around 8,000 rocket launchers and artillery cannons on its side of the demilitarized zone between the North and South, and it could use that arsenal to strike the major capital of Seoul. It could also use its short-range missiles to strike Tokyo and other large Japanese urban areas, some of them with only about a 10-minute warning.
But a fight between the North and South would be bad enough. Simulations of a large-scale artillery fight produce pretty bleak results. One war game convened by the Atlantic back in 2005 predicted that a North Korean attack would kill 100,000 people in Seoul in the first few days alone. Others put the estimate even higher. A war game mentioned by the National Interest predicted Seoul could “be hit by over half-a-million shells in under an hour.” Those results don’t bode well for one of Washington’s closest allies, or for the 25.6 million people living in Seoul.
None of this even factors in the large-scale refugee crisis that a war would create, where millions would flock north to China as their homes and livelihoods are ravaged by war. That’s something China expressly does not want. Beijing prioritizes stability on the peninsula, and it helps explain why it has been so unwilling to alter the status quo in North Korea. Any change, China fears, may lead to problems for the Chinese government down the road.
Here’s the end result, according to my colleague Zack Beauchamp: “Given North Korea’s massive conventional military and unknown number of nuclear weapons, conflict on the Korean Peninsula would cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives.”
So a surgical strike may have risks because of what North Korea might do. It’s also a risk because the strike itself may not work as planned.
The reason for that is many of North Korea’s nuclear sites are underground or in caves. Plus, the US and its partners are unsure where many of the dozens of missiles that would carry a nuclear weapon are. Some are hidden away and others are on mobile launchers that could be moved if North Korea sensed an attack was coming. Either way, special operations forces would likely be on the ground in North Korea, conducting risky military maneuvers — putting themselves in harm’s way."
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/6/15922824/trump-north-korea-icbm-options-bad
Vox again, another time-travel vote for Trump ; )