Inbound ballistic missile to Hawaii, false alarm.

[ZenOps]

If you strip away all flags and any patriotic pre-conceived notions:

The continent of the USA has technically nuked the greater Hawaii area five times with what could be considered a reasonable amount of radiation. Read what you will into that, but in war generals quite often fight for themselves and not so much any flag of any country.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ons-satellite/

"But the engineers could stave off the inevitable only so long: In February 1963 accumulating radiation damage finally caused Telstar 1's transistors to fail irreparably. Fortunately, the energized electrons had dissipated when NASA launched Telstar 2 a year later." - Is it safe to assume that an atmospheric nuke has the potential to charge the atmosphere and make satellite launches risky for one year?

Again. Is Hawaii "acceptable loss" to the USA? For me, there is no question at all that Guam and its entirety of civilian population is expendable to the US. I mean really, Mexicans are being kicked out - and they were born on the same greater contiguous continental America.

[D'z Nutz]

Investigation concluded the whole process was a mess, but it was all started by that office idiot that never seems to get it that everyone has to deal with hahaha

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/hawaii-...tack-1.4510465

The worker who sent the false alert has refused to co-operate with the state or federal investigations, beyond providing a written statement. Logan said he was fired Friday.

He had performance issues in the past, according to the report from the internal investigation. It says the worker confused real-life events and drills at least two previous times. One was related to a fire and another to a tsunami.

...

According to the internal report, six minutes after the false alert had gone public, the employee who sent it was directed to send a message cancelling the alert. But the employee "just sat there and didn't respond ... and seemed confused" the report says.

[ZenOps]

Analysis completed:

The optimal place for North Korea to hide and launch a high-altitude nuke (from missile or landmine type) would be from the mountainous region just south of Santiago Chile (South America) for maximum fear in New York USA. Possibly even from a submarine or cargo ship off the coast of Santiago.

It all makes sense to me now, why Russia chose Cuba for its nukes. You learn something new every day.

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Analysis completed:

The optimal place for North Korea to hide and launch a high-altitude nuke (from missile or landmine type) would be from the mountainous region just south of Santiago Chile (South America) for maximum fear in New York USA. Possibly even from a submarine or cargo ship off the coast of Santiago.

It all makes sense to me now, why Russia chose Cuba for its nukes. You learn something new every day.

Good medication day for sure.

The optimal launch location is oh, perhaps underwater 5km from the shores of NYC.

Zero warning and maximum casualties.

[ZenOps]

That's the optimal place for maximum casualties in a low altitude nuke. Assuming high-altitude nuke its pretty much has to be mounted on an ICBM or flown in on a remote controlled Cessna that never intends to land. High altitude will reduce immediate casualties to zero, but inflict maximum fear and sabre rattling points.

Assuming ICBM, it would be retarded to launch all nukes from your own country when there are plenty of mostly uninhabited staging islands all over the place in Central and south America. Arguably, Guam and Hawaii are both just staging points for ICBM lobs into China - it does make the most sense.

However, its safe to assume that if nukes are used both types will be employed - nukes at ground level in New York and high altitude as well. Assuming Kim Jong has 60 nukes - I would put 3 nukes on Guam at sea level with one higher up, three nukes on Hawaii at sea level as well one higher up. The highest yield atmospheric nuke over the Mountains closer to California at 150 miles, and one closer to New York at 150 miles. Ground level nukes on the greater continental USA would be optional because that would cause politically unsustainable civilian casualties.

BUT. I would also hold two nukes back with a submarine along with a hired oil tanker (does not need to be anywhere near 5,100 metric ton capacity) off the coast of Santiago as an insurance policy - if not one also hidden in the mountains. I mean sure, North Koreas submarines only have two weeks of fuel, but a US army tank only has one hour worth of fuel which means nothing if its trailing behind a fuel truck - lol.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/31/asia/...ntl/index.html

In many ways I don't understand what CNN and others are talking about when they say "North Korea can't hit the USA because we are too far away." It like the entire of the USA can be fooled by one dimensional thinking.

If Kim Jong gets 300 nukes - well - you might as well just say its coming from anywhere and everywhere. I hope the US has built 50,000 anti-ICBM missles because there are going to be plenty of dummies too.

China has no more control over North Korean nuke production, than the US has over Mexican avocado production.

[ZenOps]

OR The US could lift sanctions and pay North Korea a few Billion dollars as penance for killing off a million North Korea citizens - to not nuke the greater USA.

This is the most likely scenario, and realistically the path the US has gone down before in the past.

[ZenOps]

BTW: I can say that the USA is treating Mexico like shit (not that everyone doesn't know)

Seriously, building a wall is probably necessary. North Korea and South Korea are actually getting to the point where they can start thinking about taking down walls.

If the USA ever gets to the point where they start mining the Mexican border with landmines, its basically over for the US as a superpower. But again, its not ouside possibility that the US would mine its own Mexican border - if you look at the history of how many nukes the US has set off on its own land.



I Blame "McCain logic".