Think about all the obstacles one would have to overcome to shoot down a nuclear warhead. What if a nation says they will launch a nuclear warhead against another country. The other country scrambles all of their defensive methods and makes sure they shoot down the incoming weapon.
But what if the incoming warhead was a decoy? Just how much muscle should the military use to down one incoming warhead? If too few attack missiles are deployed and the warhead slips through how could the military justify not using massive defensive strategies to down that first incoming warhead, especially after being warned.
What if after the decoy warhead was launched and destroyed, 40 minutes later another warhead is launched? What if the country defending itself overused its defense just to down the lead dud warhead and suddenly a couple more warheads are launched? What if the few warheads are all downed, does the second country then retaliate if they successfully downed a couple of warheads they were forewarned about?
What if several dozen warheads are launched all at once, but each travels at a different speed, pace and direction? What if the speed demon of the group is a dud but because it leads the pack it attracts massive amounts of firepower to make sure it is destroyed? It seems like a giant rubik's cube puzzle to figure out how much firepower can be used to destroy each and every incoming warhead along with the priority as to which missile should be destroyed first. Dare the military ignore the closest, fastest but smallest warhead to make sure they get a slower moving, larger warhead that is among a group of secondary warhead, but more likely to carry an actual nuclear warhead?
It seems like the fastest warheads would attract the most firepower, possibly leaving too little remaining firepower to down the slower moving warheads that may actually have a nuclear weapon. And if it turns out that one of the fastest warheads actually has a nuclear weapon, and it detonates, the ability to then destroy other targets may be compromised as well.
And what about where the defensive missiles are stored that can be loaded onto our own fighter planes. They are stored in bunkers mere yards apart. It seems line one or two well placed bombs could destroy all the bunkers as the first bunker epically explodes upon being struck.
What if nuclear warheads and dud warheads are sent in all directions, how does the U.S. prioritize which missiles to shoot down? What if duds are sent to the U.S. but real warheads are sent to Australia, Guam and Japan? Does the U.S. scramble additional firepower to down warheads headed at locations not within the U.S. ?
And what about where the defensive missiles are stored that can be loaded onto our own fighter planes. They are stored in bunkers mere yards apart. It seems line one or two well placed bombs could destroy all the bunkers as the first bunker epically explodes upon being struck.
What if nuclear warheads and dud warheads are sent in all directions, how does the U.S. prioritize which missiles to shoot down? What if duds are sent to the U.S. but real warheads are sent to Australia, Guam and Japan? Does the U.S. scramble additional firepower to down warheads headed at locations not within the U.S. ?
If Kim Jong-Un successfully launches a nuclear warhead and due to errors on all sides the warhead detonates, what are people to think that a mad man can pre announce his nuclear launch desires, and then see them fulfilled?
If Kim Jong-Un were to be assassinated, does that not send a message to other dictators with nuclear weapons to never announce their intentions ahead of time? Assassination would make Kim Jong-Un a martyr and possibly create splinter groups within North Korea who will want to carry on Jong's wishes.
If Kim Jung-Un is not assassinated, he cannot stay in power AND keep his nuclear arsenal. And that leads back to a suggestion that DailyPUMA has made on a few occasions in the past. Reward Kim Jung-Un for his countries advances in nuclear weapons technology by welcoming North Korea as a Major non Nato Ally in exchange for the dismantling of North Korea's nuclear weapons program.
It appears that a MNNA Invitation for North Korea regarding their public statements about an inevitable launching of nuclear weapons is preferable to simply kicking the nuclear can down the road.
For Kim Jong-Un to stay in power, he would have to give up his nuclear weapons. Assassinating Kim Jong-Un would simply prove he was right about America as being a threat to North Korea. Kim Jong-Un would have to be promised his own safety and acceptance as a Major non Nato Ally might be the safest course of action for the rest of the world.
For Kim Jong-Un to stay in power, he would have to give up his nuclear weapons. Assassinating Kim Jong-Un would simply prove he was right about America as being a threat to North Korea. Kim Jong-Un would have to be promised his own safety and acceptance as a Major non Nato Ally might be the safest course of action for the rest of the world.
Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.
No comments:
Post a Comment