You did not reply how South Korea intends to nuke NK when South has no nukes? Absurd for a self proclaimed Korean man to not know this when even non Koreans like me have this general knowledge...hmm
There is a difference between what is publicly made available and what is real.
If N Korea delivered nukes to SK, NK would not survive. Both countries would die.
The US officially still has hundreds of nuclear bombs that can be carried by almost every fighter in the US inventory.
Even now, we are spending billions to modernize them to make them even more accurate.
Now, why would the US do this, when we already have thousands of nuclear warheads on subs and ICBMs, enough to turn every country on earth into a smoldering wasteland? One would think there would be no point in spending billions to upgrade very short ranged nuclear gravity bombs that are delivered by short range fighters, after all, it's not like we have Russia or China in range of an F15 or F16.
What we do have however are plenty of F15s and F16s operating in Japan and Korea. American fighters and export versions sold to both Korea and Japan. 
There is a difference between what is publicly made available and what is real.
If N Korea delivered nukes to SK, NK would not survive. Both countries would die.
South Korea does not have nukes, you all thinking they have it covertly is absurd when nuclear watchdogs like IAEA and suppliers groups like NSG keep strict control on both technology and uranium. CTBT and and NPT signatories are further prohibited from nuke testing and proliferation. How is SK going to have a nuke arsenal when they cannot even test it without being caught. You all really live in some fantastical fictional movie world it seems dissociated from actual facts. As if getting and developing nukes is cake walk with all the embargos and sanctions associated with it. Only US, China, Russia, Uk, France, India and Pakistan have actual capacity to use nukes and have declared recognised nuclear arsenal.
The only rogue nations said to have nukes covertly or building it are Israel, Iran, North Korea and lately some murmurs of Saudi. All South Korea and Japan have is a nuclear umbrella of United States, not an actual arsenal of nuke weapons to attack anyone.
Anyway atleast we caught the user who has been faking about being a South Korean in this process and discussion.
Display MoreThe US officially still has hundreds of nuclear bombs that can be carried by almost every fighter in the US inventory.
Even now, we are spending billions to modernize them to make them even more accurate.
Now, why would the US do this, when we already have thousands of nuclear warheads on subs and ICBMs, enough to turn every country on earth into a smoldering wasteland? One would think there would be no point in spending billions to upgrade very short ranged nuclear gravity bombs that are delivered by short range fighters, after all, it's not like we have Russia or China in range of an F15 or F16.
What we do have however are plenty of F15s and F16s operating in Japan and Korea. American fighters and export versions sold to both Korea and Japan.
Contrary to what Top Gun: Maverick would have you believe, it's simply not realistic to send some fighter jets into enemy territory and have them survive long enough to deliver such a payload. This is why everyone wants to develop faster missiles that are harder to shoot down. Hell, even a high-altitude stealth bomber would be a better solution.
We also don't actually need anything stationed in Japan or Korea. Just dispatch one of our dozen or so aircraft carriers or some attack submarines from Guam and they'll be there soon enough.
Of course, anyone using nuclear weapons is liable to start an apocalyptic chain reaction known as World War 3, so... not really the best idea in general.
Even now, we are spending billions to modernize them to make them even more accurate.
taxpayer's money down the drain 
It's been a long time since I was in Korea but stuff like this would always happen.
North Korea would randomly get a stick up their ass and declare war in a half-baked way or launch a missile whenever South Korea and the U.S. were holding a training exercise or sanctions were about to be placed.
The part that most people don't know is that every couple of years, S. Korea donates a LOT of rice and other materials to North Korea and it's around these times when we start hearing of "peace talks" until North Korea starts getting brave again lol.
My nonproliferation friends would be so amused with this thread. There is a field within international development devoted to preventing the arms race and tracking nukes and other weapons of mass destructions.
South Korea does not have nukes, you all thinking they have it covertly is absurd when nuclear watchdogs like IAEA and suppliers groups like NSG keep strict control on both technology and uranium. CTBT and and NPT signatories are further prohibited from nuke testing and proliferation. How is SK going to have a nuke arsenal when they cannot even test it without being caught. You all really live in some fantastical fictional movie world it seems dissociated from actual facts. As if getting and developing nukes is cake walk with all the embargos and sanctions associated with it. Only US, China, Russia, Uk, France, India and Pakistan have actual capacity to use nukes and have declared recognised nuclear arsenal.
The only rogue nations said to have nukes covertly or building it are Israel, Iran, North Korea and lately some murmurs of Saudi. All South Korea and Japan have is a nuclear umbrella of United States, not an actual arsenal of nuke weapons to attack anyone.
Anyway atleast we caught the user who has been faking about being a South Korean in this process and discussion.
Contrary to what Top Gun: Maverick would have you believe, it's simply not realistic to send some fighter jets into enemy territory and have them survive long enough to deliver such a payload. This is why everyone wants to develop faster missiles that are harder to shoot down. Hell, even a high-altitude stealth bomber would be a better solution.
We also don't actually need anything stationed in Japan or Korea. Just dispatch one of our dozen or so aircraft carriers or some attack submarines from Guam and they'll be there soon enough.
Of course, anyone using nuclear weapons is liable to start an apocalyptic chain reaction known as World War 3, so... not really the best idea in general.
lol great information both of you, honestly i would love to talk geopolitics and defense with y'all.
Xviper, i agree with everything you say, there really isnt any reason for the US to use old ass gravity bombs that have like 10-50 mile standoff ranges. It seems stupid. Yet here we are, with thousands of warheads on 6000 mile range missiles, enough to destroy the world, and yet we're still spending billions on updating and modifying hundreds of plain old gravity bombs that can be carried by our tiniest shortest range fighters. Why would we do that?
Some are used for NATO's tactical nuclear reserve. And the rest? Well, unless you think we're facing a nuclear level threat from Mexico or Canada, those other nukes are probably kept in reserve to use against other critical threats. Coincidentally, one of those threats is within easy striking range of dozens of tactical fighters, including the upcoming F35 which will be deployed on land and at sea, and will have much higher survivability against SAM threats.
And paradis, i applaud your passion and your knowledge, i know you or others on here might actually be involved in these areas or have deep knowledge about nuclear proliferation. But unless you're part of the real decisionmakers running the countries in question, just remember what i said above lol. I've only been involved in politics at the most local level, and it was enough to tell me everything i needed to know about human decisionmaking esp in terms of power politics and one of the fundamental rules is NEVER SPEAK THE WHOLE TRUTH. There is nothing to be gained from it.
What i'm theorizing is that if tensions start escalating to the point where war with N Korea is deemed imminent, you can throw all those nuclear proliferation treaties and restrictions out the window. In wartime, i will guess that none of those rules will apply. Every contingency will be planned for. And if that involves violating the NPT or other rules...do i need to finish that sentence? 
I mean this is just my senile boomer ranting, i have no inside info obviously lol. I just have made it a habit to not take anything anyone says at face value - people in all walks of life are always working an angle 
.
Attached is a picture of an F16 carrying a dummy B61 i believe. This fighter has a literal 400-500 mile range. Why on earth are we wasting even a penny ensuring that a nuclear bomb can be carried by this tiny fighter?
I wouldn't joke about that
Unfortunately that isn't a joke if conflict erupted they would indeed send a special forces team to capture or kill him a classic decapitation attack.
They do this all the time
I do remember that Red Velvet, without Joy, did visit North Korea some years ago
Donโt have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!
