Jump to content


What's with the ads?

Photo
- - - - -

Guam NK and survival bunkers


47 replies to this topic

What's with the ads?

#1 MommyLiberty5013

MommyLiberty5013

    Don't Let the Lipstick Fool You

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 615 posts

Posted 11 August 2017 - 03:47 PM

Residents of Guam are prepping for an attack. Companies in the US that make survival bunkers have seen a 300% increase in sales, with one company having an explosion of online inquiries (80% of them coming from Japan) in the last month.

I'm just not that worried. DH thinks Kim enjoys his lifestyle too much to destroy his empire by attacking the US.

I've honestly been more worried about an Islamic terror attack on our soil crushing our grid in some way and causing havoc in the stock market.
  • Happy, Lanny and trulycrabby like this

#2 Lanny

Lanny

    Powered by Banana Splits

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7272 posts

Posted 11 August 2017 - 04:01 PM

Most of the things in the list for the Emergency Disasters Supply Kit would be good to have on hand, in the event of a Hurricane, Tornado, Earthquake, etc.  I do not think the residents of Guam are "prepping" for an attack, but they are the declared target at this time. I am puzzled why NK would publicly announce their intention to launch 4 missiles to Guam next week. Where is the surprise factor in that? They would have approximately 14 minutes if a missile was launched from NK to Guam. To Chicago it would take approximately 38 minutes.

 

http://www.foxnews.c...ile-attack.html



#3 MommyLiberty5013

MommyLiberty5013

    Don't Let the Lipstick Fool You

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 615 posts

Posted 11 August 2017 - 04:08 PM

Most of the things in the list for the Emergency Disasters Supply Kit would be good to have on hand, in the event of a Hurricane, Tornado, Earthquake, etc. I do not think the residents of Guam are "prepping" for an attack, but they are the declared target at this time. I am puzzled why NK would publicly announce their intention to launch 4 missiles to Guam next week. Where is the surprise factor in that? They would have approximately 14 minutes if a missile was launched from NK to Guam. To Chicago it would take approximately 38 minutes.

http://www.foxnews.c...ile-attack.html


I imagine many are "prepping" as in, getting their stuff together. I read a slew of articles too from Fox. It is so weird that Kim would announce his intentions, which I suppose is why DH thinks he's crazy, but full of hot air.
  • Lanny likes this

#4 creekland

creekland

    Retired homeschooler!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23921 posts

Posted 11 August 2017 - 04:18 PM

It seems the declaration is to launch missiles into the waters near Guam - not hit the island.  I guess the "warning" is for "military exercises" similar to what "other nations" are doing "in the area."  (aka tit for tat rather than a declaration of starting a skirmish)

 

I think the rest of the world has their common sense in the right place telling both leaders to step back from this "game" they are playing.  It won't be a "game" as soon as the first person dies, and once the first person dies... yuck.  (sigh)  :banghead:


  • elegantlion, Eliana, beckyjo and 5 others like this

#5 Lanny

Lanny

    Powered by Banana Splits

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7272 posts

Posted 11 August 2017 - 04:40 PM

I imagine many are "prepping" as in, getting their stuff together. I read a slew of articles too from Fox. It is so weird that Kim would announce his intentions, which I suppose is why DH thinks he's crazy, but full of hot air.

Probably not crazy. He has ICBMs capable of carrying Nuclear Warheads to the mainland USA now. The systems to intercept them are not reliable at this time. The current situation which has the world close to WW3 is the catastrophic result of past administrations of both parties kicking the can down the road for 30 or 40 years. General Kelly and his wife lost a son in war. General Mattis knows war would be a catastrophic event. They are working the back channel with NK. This is FAR worse than the Cold War with the former Soviet Union. We had a lot of communication with them and inspection visits etc. There's no good solution to this other than reunification of the 2 Koreas but probably China will not permit that


Sent from my SM-G355M using Tapatalk
  • snowbeltmom, trulycrabby and chiefcookandbottlewasher like this

#6 Kinsa

Kinsa

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9697 posts

Posted 11 August 2017 - 04:45 PM

China has been the lynch pin for over half a century. The "puppeteer" behind NK, if you will.
  • transientChris, Alicia64, snowbeltmom and 5 others like this

#7 Seasider

Seasider

    anchored

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8719 posts

Posted 11 August 2017 - 06:14 PM

The only shelter I want is one like Christopher Walken built.

 

Seriously, I feel like what's happening is way beyond my control. I'm in watch and pray mode. I cannot imagine what I would be feeling if I lived in Guam, the Pacific or on the west coast USA.

 


  • Katy and MommyLiberty5013 like this

#8 Laurie

Laurie

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1649 posts

Posted 11 August 2017 - 07:41 PM

 

 

Seriously, I feel like what's happening is way beyond my control. I'm in watch and pray mode. I cannot imagine what I would be feeling if I lived in Guam, the Pacific or on the west coast USA.

 

Would you believe that in my state (WA) it's actually against the law for emergency planners to plan specifically for a nuclear attack.  



#9 Seasider

Seasider

    anchored

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8719 posts

Posted 11 August 2017 - 07:56 PM

Would you believe that in my state (WA) it's actually against the law for emergency planners to plan specifically for a nuclear attack.


Because why???
  • transientChris, Katy, shawthorne44 and 4 others like this

#10 3 ladybugs

3 ladybugs

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1772 posts

Posted 11 August 2017 - 08:13 PM

My aunt used to live in Guam (not military). I talked to her about what it was like to live there in June. She said it is very small and I kind of got the impression that it is sort of like a village and not even really a town. I asked her if there were any museums there and she laughed and said no, not that she was aware of. 

 

I live not far from a major base here on the east coast and I haven't heard anything (in the air) but that is probably meaningless. 

 

This whole thing is scary but it is one of those things that I really can't worry about. Either a) nothing is going to happen, or b) something will happen and will be catastrophic or c) something in between will happen. If C happens it will not be good and we will all wish for to have been B. 

 

Prayers for our military, and the people in the immediate area. 


  • MommyLiberty5013 likes this

#11 Laurie4b

Laurie4b

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13720 posts

Posted 11 August 2017 - 08:37 PM

My aunt used to live in Guam (not military). I talked to her about what it was like to live there in June. She said it is very small and I kind of got the impression that it is sort of like a village and not even really a town. I asked her if there were any museums there and she laughed and said no, not that she was aware of. 

 

I live not far from a major base here on the east coast and I haven't heard anything (in the air) but that is probably meaningless. 

 

This whole thing is scary but it is one of those things that I really can't worry about. Either a) nothing is going to happen, or b) something will happen and will be catastrophic or c) something in between will happen. If C happens it will not be good and we will all wish for to have been B. 

 

Prayers for our military, and the people in the immediate area. 

 

There are around 160,000 US citizens there as well as military personnel. 


  • Eliana, Gaillardia and CinV like this

#12 Spryte

Spryte

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9603 posts

Posted 11 August 2017 - 08:54 PM

My aunt used to live in Guam (not military). I talked to her about what it was like to live there in June. She said it is very small and I kind of got the impression that it is sort of like a village and not even really a town. I asked her if there were any museums there and she laughed and said no, not that she was aware of.

I live not far from a major base here on the east coast and I haven't heard anything (in the air) but that is probably meaningless.

This whole thing is scary but it is one of those things that I really can't worry about. Either a) nothing is going to happen, or b) something will happen and will be catastrophic or c) something in between will happen. If C happens it will not be good and we will all wish for to have been B.

Prayers for our military, and the people in the immediate area.


http://guammuseum.org/
  • Barb_ likes this

#13 Barb_

Barb_

    Master of None

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10705 posts

Posted 11 August 2017 - 09:05 PM

North Korea has been threatening Guam since at least 2003. We are the danger this time.  


Edited by Barb_, 11 August 2017 - 09:10 PM.

  • Eliana, heatherwith3, Spryte and 2 others like this

#14 Barb_

Barb_

    Master of None

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10705 posts

Posted 11 August 2017 - 09:26 PM

My aunt used to live in Guam (not military). I talked to her about what it was like to live there in June. She said it is very small and I kind of got the impression that it is sort of like a village and not even really a town. I asked her if there were any museums there and she laughed and said no, not that she was aware of.

<snip>

This whole thing is scary but it is one of those things that I really can't worry about.
.


I'm having trouble understanding why Guam's (false) lack of museum makes it okay to nuke them? I may be misunderstanding your post, so please clarify if necessary.

#15 MommyLiberty5013

MommyLiberty5013

    Don't Let the Lipstick Fool You

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 615 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 12:48 AM

I'm having trouble understanding why Guam's (false) lack of museum makes it okay to nuke them? I may be misunderstanding your post, so please clarify if necessary.

 

Nothing in the post by the PP indicated an okay-ness to nuke Guam or a suggestion that small size, with or without a museum, makes them more nukeable.

 

Her post did indicate the small size physically and a small culture unto itself, which is a matter of fact, not opinion good or bad. She is correct. At its widest point, the island is only 12 miles wide and 2 miles at its narrowest. I think it is around 36 miles in length with roughly 160,000 U.S. citizens. It being an island would give it its own culture.

 

The PP was not advocating Guam should get nuked just commenting on its size. I have no idea how you were able to draw that connection.


  • Sassenach, transientChris, I talk to the trees and 5 others like this

#16 Carrie12345

Carrie12345

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11568 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 04:52 AM

Well, I'd like a bunker, but I wouldn't put any faith in it being useful in a direct attack.

Nothing else to say that doesn't violate board rules.
  • Barb_ and chiefcookandbottlewasher like this

#17 3 ladybugs

3 ladybugs

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1772 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 05:33 AM

I'm having trouble understanding why Guam's (false) lack of museum makes it okay to nuke them? I may be misunderstanding your post, so please clarify if necessary.

 

 

Nothing in the post by the PP indicated an okay-ness to nuke Guam or a suggestion that small size, with or without a museum, makes them more nukeable.

 

Her post did indicate the small size physically and a small culture unto itself, which is a matter of fact, not opinion good or bad. She is correct. At its widest point, the island is only 12 miles wide and 2 miles at its narrowest. I think it is around 36 miles in length with roughly 160,000 U.S. citizens. It being an island would give it its own culture.

 

The PP was not advocating Guam should get nuked just commenting on its size. I have no idea how you were able to draw that connection.

 

YES, I am not advocating nuking anyone!

 

I hadn't seen my aunt in quite a few years when I saw her in June. We went to the Natural History Museum in NYC and she commented that she had something that was from the south pacific that was in better shape then the museums (some art piece). I asked her if there were museums on Guam to showcase items like this. This is where she laughed and told me she had never seen one. My cousin (who was almost an adult when he lived there with her) also indicated the same way. Now she moved from there around 1991-ish so maybe they have since built one, or maybe it was just not on her radar.

 

My point about the size was just that I don't know where they would build a bunker. Half the island is inhabitable. So you are talking about a very small space. The island is also hit by frequent typhoons (hurricanes) so they already live in "bunkers". I got the impression from my aunt that it isn't very pleasant in general to live there, but maybe it was just not for her. She did comment once that she went to the bathroom in the middle of the night and found a 10 foot long snake coming out of her toilet. That is sure to make anyone hate a place! :o 



#18 Lanny

Lanny

    Powered by Banana Splits

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7272 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 07:55 AM

@  3 ladybugs  Here's the URL for the Guam Museum:  http://guammuseum.org/

 

Guam Museum
193 Chalan Santo Papa
Juan Pablo Dos
Hagatna, GU 96910



#19 AnnE-girl

AnnE-girl

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1458 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 10:13 AM

I saw this article and thought of this thread. https://www.yahoo.co...-163255839.html

Still not very reassuring for Guam, but a little less scary for the continental states.

#20 Moxie

Moxie

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9097 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 10:42 AM

I know that this is easy to say, but, if I felt so concerned that I was buying a bunker, I'd probably opt to relocate. Easier said than done, I know. I have a lot of anxiety now; I'd be a non-functional mess if I thought I needed a bunker.

#21 Sassenach

Sassenach

    Dinna Fash Yourself

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6362 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 10:50 AM

I know that this is easy to say, but, if I felt so concerned that I was buying a bunker, I'd probably opt to relocate. Easier said than done, I know. I have a lot of anxiety now; I'd be a non-functional mess if I thought I needed a bunker.


Maybe not permanently, but I would probably plan a long vacation to visit mainland relatives.

#22 umsami

umsami

    Empress of Messiness, but not a hoarder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9605 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 01:19 PM

There are around 160,000 US citizens there as well as military personnel. 

 

Yes...just want to point out that those don't realize it, but all residents of the Northern Marianas are U.S. Citizens due to its being a US Commonwealth like Puerto Rico (even though they get screwed and don't have representation in Congress or can vote.)  (Best friend in college was from Saipan...which has about 50k.)  Actually, Guam may somehow be separate from the Northern Marianas and classified as a US Territory, although that makes zero sense to me.  But due to close proximity, I would say roughly 210,000 people are at risk.

 

Residents of Guam are prepping for an attack. Companies in the US that make survival bunkers have seen a 300% increase in sales, with one company having an explosion of online inquiries (80% of them coming from Japan) in the last month.

I'm just not that worried. DH thinks Kim enjoys his lifestyle too much to destroy his empire by attacking the US.

I've honestly been more worried about an Islamic terror attack on our soil crushing our grid in some way and causing havoc in the stock market.

 

While an attack by Islamic terrorists is a possibility, terrorism in the US is still far more likely to be from Right Wing groups.  

 

http://www.newsweek....e-bannon-628381

 

"A joint project by the Investigative Fund at the Nation Institute, a nonprofit media center, and Reveal from the Center for Investigative Reporting has found that within the past nine years,  right-wing extremists plotted or carried out nearly twice as many terrorist attacks as Islamist extremists. Of the 115 right-wing incidents, police only foiled 35 percent. Compare this to the 63 Islamist terrorism cases, where police foiled 76 percent of the planned attacks.

 

Right-wing extremists were not only more successful, they were often more deadly, too. From 2008 to 2016, a third of right-wing attacks involved fatalities, compared to 13 percent of Islamist attacks. It should be noted, however, that Islamist extremists killed more people overall, with a death toll of 90 people compared to 79."

One thing is that Muslims themselves often turn in their radicalized brethren...whether or not the FBI acts on it, is another story:  

"Malik (contacted the FBI about the Pulse Nightclub Shooter) is far from the first American Muslim to come forward with tips on would-be terrorists. A Duke University study from 2014 noted that, since 9/11, no fewer than 54 jihadist terror suspects or perpetrators came to authorities’ attention as a result of initial tips from members of America’s 3.3 million Muslim citizens.

Muslim informants fingered more terror suspects than bulk data-collection did in the same period of time. Gen. Keith Alexander, director of the National Security Agency between 2005 and 2014, boasted that mass surveillance had prevented around 10 terror plots."


  • Dotwithaperiod, Eliana, heatherwith3 and 1 other like this

#23 Lanny

Lanny

    Powered by Banana Splits

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7272 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 01:56 PM

Puerto Ricans and Guamanians each have a non-voting representative, in the House of Representatives in Washington DC.  They are U.S. Citizens and if they move to the USA, they are eligible to vote in Federal Elections. They do not pay U.S. Income Tax. The money they pay in taxes stays on their islands.  

 

I would not think spending $ for a "survival bunker" is a wise way to spend money, unless one has $$$$$$. 

 

I was in the AIr National Guard. When I went through Basic Training, there was a guy from the Puerto Rico Air National Guard in my group. Guam has the Guam Air National Guard.

 

Both are Territories of the USA and the people born there are U.S. Citizens by birth.


  • transientChris likes this

#24 heatherwith3

heatherwith3

    Like a Chicken With Her Head Cut Off

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3641 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 02:02 PM

I admit to being embarrassed at how little I know about Guam. I've been working on that this weekend.
  • transientChris and Lanny like this

#25 Spy Car

Spy Car

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21349 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 02:05 PM

I don't know about you all, but as I kid I grew up in one of those post-WWII "baby boom" suburbs that were built out at the height of the Cold War. In my little neighborhood, there were more than a few homes that had bomb shelters in the backyards.

 

Between the regular tests of the air-raid sirens, the "duck and cover" drills at school, the bomb shelters added a little flavor to the doomsday paranoia.

 

Bill


  • transientChris, KayT, tcb and 3 others like this

#26 Barb_

Barb_

    Master of None

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10705 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 02:31 PM

YES, I am not advocating nuking anyone!

I hadn't seen my aunt in quite a few years when I saw her in June. We went to the Natural History Museum in NYC and she commented that she had something that was from the south pacific that was in better shape then the museums (some art piece). I asked her if there were museums on Guam to showcase items like this. This is where she laughed and told me she had never seen one. My cousin (who was almost an adult when he lived there with her) also indicated the same way. Now she moved from there around 1991-ish so maybe they have since built one, or maybe it was just not on her radar.

My point about the size was just that I don't know where they would build a bunker. Half the island is inhabitable. So you are talking about a very small space. The island is also hit by frequent typhoons (hurricanes) so they already live in "bunkers". I got the impression from my aunt that it isn't very pleasant in general to live there, but maybe it was just not for her. She did comment once that she went to the bathroom in the middle of the night and found a 10 foot long snake coming out of her toilet. That is sure to make anyone hate a place! :o


I see :) That's why I asked. I immediately jumped to the conclusion that you were thinking, "at least it's not the mainland of the US." Like Guam is expendable. Glad to be wrong.
  • transientChris, Artichoke and Lanny like this

#27 Barb_

Barb_

    Master of None

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10705 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 02:33 PM

Nothing in the post by the PP indicated an okay-ness to nuke Guam or a suggestion that small size, with or without a museum, makes them more nukeable.

Her post did indicate the small size physically and a small culture unto itself, which is a matter of fact, not opinion good or bad. She is correct. At its widest point, the island is only 12 miles wide and 2 miles at its narrowest. I think it is around 36 miles in length with roughly 160,000 U.S. citizens. It being an island would give it its own culture.

The PP was not advocating Guam should get nuked just commenting on its size. I have no idea how you were able to draw that connection.


I'm scared and primed to be pissed off.
  • MommyLiberty5013 likes this

#28 creekland

creekland

    Retired homeschooler!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23921 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 02:41 PM

I'm scared and primed to be pissed off.

 

If anyone isn't at least a little concerned with the "game" that is going on, they either have no compassion for those in harm's way (millions of people in SK & NK at minimum) or they have no real comprehension of what a modern war breaking out (nuclear or conventional) can do to a place.  

 

There's a reason essentially the whole rest of the world is telling BOTH leaders to back away.


Edited by creekland, 12 August 2017 - 02:57 PM.

  • Barb_, Amira, transientChris and 7 others like this

#29 Lanny

Lanny

    Powered by Banana Splits

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7272 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 02:49 PM

I don't know about you all, but as I kid I grew up in one of those post-WWII "baby boom" suburbs that were built out at the height of the Cold War. In my little neighborhood, there were more than a few homes that had bomb shelters in the backyards.

 

Between the regular tests of the air-raid sirens, the "duck and cover" drills at school, the bomb shelters added a little flavor to the doomsday paranoia.

 

Bill

 

I remember the "duck and cover drills". Get under your desk.  How inane that seems to me now. How that was supposed to protect someone from a Nuclear Blast, I don't know.  That was in the days when the USA did above ground tests North of Las Vegas.


  • transientChris, creekland, FaithManor and 2 others like this

#30 Lanny

Lanny

    Powered by Banana Splits

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7272 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 03:03 PM

If anyone isn't at least a little concerned with the "game" that is going on, they either have no compassion for those in harm's way (millions of people in SK &, NK at minimum) or they have no real comprehension of what a modern war breaking out (nuclear or conventional) can do to a place.  

 

There's a reason essentially the whole rest of the world is telling BOTH leaders to back away.

 

The USA has a highly experienced  and deeply respected General running the Pentagon. He knows exactly how horrible war is and how catastrophic a war with NK would be. He wants more negotiation, because there are NO good options, without a huge number of deaths and injuries. Jim Mattis is a very solid person to have there.

 

And in the WH, there is former General John Kelly as Chief of Staff.  He and his wife know full well how horrible war is. Their son died in Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

There are apparently, and this is wonderful, back-channel communications, between the USA and the NK rep to the UN and with China.

 

The only hope is that China will demand that NK agrees to be reunited with SK. As happened with the former East Germany (Soviet bloc) and the former West Germany, when the Berlin Wall came down. That's a stretch and I doubt that NK will agree to that or that China would like that.

 

This is the most dangerous the world has been since WW2. Probably much more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis with the former Soviet Union. 

 

If NK attacks Guam, they will do what they have threatened to do.  But, if they change their targeting, and they attack Anchorage or Honolulu or Seattle, they will get the same response.


  • transientChris and chiefcookandbottlewasher like this

#31 Twolittleboys

Twolittleboys

    Hive Mind Larvae

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 760 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 03:13 PM

The USA has a highly experienced  and deeply respected General running the Pentagon. He knows exactly how horrible war is and how catastrophic a war with NK would be. He wants more negotiation, because there are NO good options, without a huge number of deaths and injuries. Jim Mattis is a very solid person to have there.

 

And in the WH, there is former General John Kelly as Chief of Staff.  He and his wife know full well how horrible war is. Their son died in Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

There are apparently, and this is wonderful, back-channel communications, between the USA and the NK rep to the UN and with China.

 

The only hope is that China will demand that NK agrees to be reunited with SK. As happened with the former East Germany (Soviet bloc) and the former West Germany, when the Berlin Wall came down. That's a stretch and I doubt that NK will agree to that or that China would like that.

 

This is the most dangerous the world has been since WW2. Probably much more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis with the former Soviet Union. 

 

If NK attacks Guam, they will do what they have threatened to do.  But, if they change their targeting, and they attack Anchorage or Honolulu or Seattle, they will get the same response.

 

Based on that, NK would be silly to attack Guam instead of the US mainland (provided they believe their weapons will go that far). If you are going down anyway, you want to inflict the maximum damage possible.

 

However, I think they are more likely to shoot "near" to Guam as they have said. That way they keep face but an all out confrontation can be avoided if everyone keeps their cool.


  • Lanny, Pawz4me and chiefcookandbottlewasher like this

#32 Lanny

Lanny

    Powered by Banana Splits

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7272 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 03:28 PM

Based on that, NK would be silly to attack Guam instead of the US mainland (provided they believe their weapons will go that far). If you are going down anyway, you want to inflict the maximum damage possible.

 

However, I think they are more likely to shoot "near" to Guam as they have said. That way they keep face but an all out confrontation can be avoided if everyone keeps their cool.

 

 

I doubt that their Targeting is that accurate at this time.  As time goes on, it will improve, as all of their technology has improved during the past years. Now, their technological advancement appears to be very rapid and much faster than the DIA had expected.

 

The problem for the USA (and our allies) is how capable the Interceptor systems are. That technology is quite new and needs a huge amount of development, which takes a lot of time and money.  My understanding is that the ability to intercept a Ballistic Missile is much better than to intercept an ICBM (Inter Continental Ballistic Missile).  I think NK has Ballistic Missiles that can target Guam, so if that's true, the USA has, I think, a better chance of intercepting them. But only about 14 minutes from Launch in NK to Splashdown on or near Guam. 

 

Andersen AFB would be THE target for NK on Guam.  That's a very strategic base for the USAF. There's also a Navy base on the island.  


Edited by Lanny, 12 August 2017 - 03:29 PM.


#33 transientChris

transientChris

    Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10608 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 04:03 PM

Both Japan and Guam have THAAD anti missile systems and South Korea got or is getting it really soon. They probably do not have the technology quite yet to a) fly an ICBM all the way to Western US and b) fly one with a nuke. What the problem is that in order to hit Japan or Guam, they do not need an ICMB. My dh said that the difference between the NK program and our missile defense program is that NK is using older engineering techniques which are faster. They fire lots of missiles and figure out how to target by trail and error. We use modeling studies, simulations, lots of contracts, politicians weighing in for favorite programs in their districts, and it all takes a much longer time. I don't know how psychotic the NK leader is, though even most psychotics can make some rational decisions, but I have to believe that soon the testing will be missiles with nukes and the huge danger here is nuking Japan because of errot or trying to do a nuke test by Guam and nuking it or really close so Guamanians are esposed to lethal radiation. I am praying that their is some secret plan to destroy their capability without them knowing. This is a true nightmare. Kim can soon decide to start nuclear tests next to Japan or South Korea and then try blackmailing them. For South Korea, that could mean that we will nuke you if you don't come under our rule.

I don't really see a way to a good scenario. The best I guess will be Nk keeping technology and not using near countries or in ways to lessen dangers to others, everyone going full speed ahead with missile defense, Japan and SK deciding to become Nuclear too. Because while they have lived with a nuclear NK for a number of years, a nuclear NK doing tests near them is a totally different matter.

#34 Dotwithaperiod

Dotwithaperiod

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5705 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 04:13 PM

If anyone isn't at least a little concerned with the "game" that is going on, they either have no compassion for those in harm's way (millions of people in SK & NK at minimum) or they have no real comprehension of what a modern war breaking out (nuclear or conventional) can do to a place.

There's a reason essentially the whole rest of the world is telling BOTH leaders to back away.

I think the Mad-man Theory only works when one half the equation is sane. When both are bat-guano psychotic, not so much.
  • Barb_, FaithManor and Sadie like this

#35 umsami

umsami

    Empress of Messiness, but not a hoarder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9605 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 04:28 PM

So saw this yesterday or the day before on Kim.  According to those familiar with North Korea, he really isn't as crazy as we think. 

 

https://www.vox.com/...-than-you-think

 

"But when I spoke to scholars and historians of North Korea, they uniformly rejected the idea that Kim is a lunatic. His ruthlessness and fierce rhetoric should not be confused with irrationality, they explained. Instead, he should be understood as extremely calculating and disciplined when it comes to maintaining his grip on power — just as his predecessors (his father, Kim Jong Il, and his grandfather and the country’s founder, Kim Il Sung) were.."


  • Amira, Katy, ChocolateReign and 1 other like this

#36 Katy

Katy

    Hive Mind Level 6 Worker: Scout Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6707 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 04:40 PM

Rachel Maddow had some interesting analysis on this on Tuesday and Friday.  Basically the statement was that this same agency (I think DIA?) leaked a report with a similar conclusion (Nuclear ICBM) in 2013, but because the president handled it differently at that time, no one panicked.  Similarly, no other intelligence agencies at the time agreed with their conclusion.  So Rachel's theory is 1) That we should look at this report with skepticism given that no other intelligence agencies or the Pentagon will comment.  And 2) Even if it is correct, making one and making one capable of surviving re-entry is a whole another level of difficult.  So don't let existential worries about WWIII get to you.


  • umsami likes this

#37 Spy Car

Spy Car

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21349 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 04:41 PM

I remember the "duck and cover drills". Get under your desk.  How inane that seems to me now. How that was supposed to protect someone from a Nuclear Blast, I don't know.  That was in the days when the USA did above ground tests North of Las Vegas.

 

I guess I've always been of a cynical nature, but even as a kid, I thought the notion that diving under our desks (a skill practiced on a regular basis) was going to save us from a nuclear conflagration was nutz!

 

I mean, good grief.

 

Later they rebranded the exercises "earthquake drills," which made more sense in seismically active Southern California.

 

Bill


  • creekland and FaithManor like this

#38 Twolittleboys

Twolittleboys

    Hive Mind Larvae

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 760 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 04:46 PM

Rachel Maddow had some interesting analysis on this on Tuesday and Friday.  Basically the statement was that this same agency (I think DIA?) leaked a report with a similar conclusion (Nuclear ICBM) in 2013, but because the president handled it differently at that time, no one panicked.  Similarly, no other intelligence agencies at the time agreed with their conclusion.  So Rachel's theory is 1) That we should look at this report with skepticism given that no other intelligence agencies or the Pentagon will comment.  And 2) Even if it is correct, making one and making one capable of surviving re-entry is a whole another level of difficult.  So don't let existential worries about WWIII get to you.

 

Well, the problem in my opinion isn't just how much damage NK can do. Any major action on their part (even if with little effect) can lead to reactions which again can lead to further reactions and so on. Do I necessarily believe this conflict will lead to disaster? No. But I do think it is a risky situation and when you look at how wars have started in the past it wasn't always intentional/predictable. Often different actors get pulled into a scenario and before you know it everything goes up in flames.


  • Spryte, Pawz4me and luuknam like this

#39 Katy

Katy

    Hive Mind Level 6 Worker: Scout Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6707 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 05:24 PM

The duck and cover thing:  If you're in the initial blast radius, you'll be vaporized and it won't do anything.  But if you are in the (much larger) secondary radius, there is a force wave after the initial explosion that will knock you over with such speed it could kill you or give you a severe head injury.  The closer your head is to the ground and the more covered it is, the safer you will be from serious head injuries.

 

If you're having trouble imagining this, picture action movie explosions:  If the hero survives the blast but is running away from it when it explodes, his whole body gets thrown up into the air away from the pressure created by the blast. Those on the ground are safer, those standing are often killed or badly injured.

 

The Guam handouts explain the theories behind the instructions well too.


  • Spryte and MommyLiberty5013 like this

#40 creekland

creekland

    Retired homeschooler!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23921 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 07:33 PM

So don't let existential worries about WWIII get to you.

 

I don't have to be worried about WWIII.  I can be worried about the lives on the Korean Peninsula that would be destroyed with today's conventional weapons that both sides possess.  How many have left perfectly good lives in  Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, etc, etc, etc due to conventional conflicts?  And all with stories of friends and relatives who didn't survive to leave.  How many countries welcome ALL these refugees with open arms today, fully willing to provide them with food, shelter, clothing, education, and jobs?

 

Anyone promoting war (including both leaders) ought to be there living it with those caught in the crossfire IMO - them and their families, of course - not in bunkers, but in plain houses "normal" people have to live in.  Too many are willing to fight from afar as if everyone known as "collateral damage" are pawns in a game, and not real people.


  • Barb_, Harriet Vane, Amira and 5 others like this

#41 creekland

creekland

    Retired homeschooler!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23921 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 07:36 PM

If NK attacks Guam, they will do what they have threatened to do.  But, if they change their targeting, and they attack Anchorage or Honolulu or Seattle, they will get the same response.

 

Just to be clear, NK has NOT threatened Guam.  They said they plan to fire missiles into the water approx 20 miles off the coast - giving warning so everyone can be out of the way presumably.  It's a demonstration event, not an attack.  Folks on the island probably won't even see anything if/when it happens.

 

Whether it happens or not is anyone's guess right now, but if it happens as stated, it's hardly a "cause" for any other country to start an actual war.


  • heatherwith3 and Twolittleboys like this

#42 umsami

umsami

    Empress of Messiness, but not a hoarder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9605 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 07:59 PM

If I were advising Kim (as I honestly think advising Trump is pointless), I would suggest that sending a missile 20 miles off of Guam, may get action-man Trump to respond in a much more deadly way then they'd have thought.  He'd want to appear tough to his followers.  (Those darn North Koreans aren't going to scare me!)  Could Mattis or Kelly stop him?  Not 100% sure on that.  So tell me, what exactly are the powers of Trump? Would he have to go to Congress to respond? Get approval of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Or is it, God-forbid, his call?


  • heatherwith3 likes this

#43 creekland

creekland

    Retired homeschooler!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23921 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 08:08 PM

If I were advising Kim (as I honestly think advising Trump is pointless), I would suggest that sending a missile 20 miles off of Guam, may get action-man Trump to respond in a much more deadly way then they'd have thought.  He'd want to appear tough to his followers.  (Those darn North Koreans aren't going to scare me!)  Could Mattis or Kelly stop him?  Not 100% sure on that.  So tell me, what exactly are the powers of Trump? Would he have to go to Congress to respond? Get approval of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Or is it, God-forbid, his call?

 

I'm not convinced that advising either one is possible.  (sigh)

 

And I think both are going to be in for a shock if the other responds as most of the world expects will happen.


  • FaithManor and umsami like this

#44 okbud

okbud

    Cylon lover

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12299 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 08:47 PM

Because why???


Because it scares people. For real.

#45 Twolittleboys

Twolittleboys

    Hive Mind Larvae

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 760 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 09:05 PM

If I were advising Kim (as I honestly think advising Trump is pointless), I would suggest that sending a missile 20 miles off of Guam, may get action-man Trump to respond in a much more deadly way then they'd have thought.  He'd want to appear tough to his followers.  (Those darn North Koreans aren't going to scare me!)  Could Mattis or Kelly stop him?  Not 100% sure on that.  So tell me, what exactly are the powers of Trump? Would he have to go to Congress to respond? Get approval of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Or is it, God-forbid, his call?

 

The problem is that I thik the missile off Guam is NK's way of backing down. They backed themselves in a bit of a corner when they first threatened Guam but it looks like they do not want to actually start anything (at least at this point). Obviously, Kim may decide not to go for it after all (I hope), especially if he thinks there may be a disproportionate reaction to something that is more a show of power than anything else. 

 

If he does go through with it, we can only hope that others react with condemnation/sanctions and no more. 


  • Barb_, creekland, umsami and 1 other like this

#46 Barb_

Barb_

    Master of None

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10705 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 09:09 PM

The problem is that I thik the missile off Guam is NK's way of backing down. They backed themselves in a bit of a corner when they first threatened Guam but it looks like they do not want to actually start anything (at least at this point). Obviously, Kim may decide not to go for it after all (I hope), especially if he thinks there may be a disproportionate reaction to something that is more a show of power than anything else.

If he does go through with it, we can only hope that others react with condemnation/sanctions and no more.


That's a good point and I think you're right.
  • umsami likes this

#47 FaithManor

FaithManor

    Empress of the Flaming Bees, Order of the Spork

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16177 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 09:11 PM

It's like watching the absolute worst game of "chicken" because unlike the Bay of Pigs crisis, the current world leaders in the fray do not appear to be particularly rational.
  • creekland, umsami, Sadie and 1 other like this

#48 Lanny

Lanny

    Powered by Banana Splits

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7272 posts

Posted 14 August 2017 - 06:35 PM

I read the OP ED in the Wall Street Journal Online this morning by Tillerson and Mattis and was very pleased with what they wrote. The hoped for goal is denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Not regime change or reunification. The Chinese will hopefully enforce the new sanctions.

Sent from my SM-G355M using Tapatalk