What if the Hawaii alert was true?

Why would we cover up a failed launch by North Korea? That makes no sense.

Highly unlikely.
THe Organgutan would have pounced on that to start his Totaler Krieg.

If a missile came close enough to trigger an alarm then the launch would by definition not have been a failure.

‘bout as much chance as it was an accidental warning.

Maybe the North Koreans nuked a US ship in international waters. Just a wild guess. Or even more wild an alien ship could have landed in the Pacific Ocean. Both would have to be hushed up. @Darth_Algar Since when does anything In the government make sense since Trump took the presidency.

Sorry I forgot the ~ my comment was tounge in cheek.

@RedDeerGuy1 You think the US government would attempt to hush up a nuclear attack on a US Navy ship? Why? How?

Have you heard of the Gulf of Tonkin incident ?

I don’t think Hawaii would be his first best choice for an attack. Study a globe, not a flat map.

It does seem a little odd happening more than once, agreed.

Thing is – with a nuclear attack you know that your adversary, if capable, will strike back in kind. So your best bet is to try to cripple their ability to respond. If you were going to attack the US with a nuclear strike Hawaii would not be the location you would target.

@Darth_Algar There’s no way for North Korea to remove the USA’s ability to annihilate it with nuclear weapons. Even if all of North America dropped dead, there are still nuclear submarines etc.

Also, I’m not sure it’s certain that a NK nuclear attack would result in a nuclear retaliation. I think it would depend on the nature and success of the attack, and what the estimates of their remaining capabilities were.

@Darth_Algar is correct, in regards to strategy. One of the large US bases in Guam, Japan, South Korea etc, would make more sense, as a target.

There really isn’t much reason for NK to nuke the US. The only chance they would have would be if they disabled our entire military. Nukes aside, we have all those bases in the region, and two carrier groups sitting right there. I wonder if people are even aware of the vast destructive power that just those two carrier groups are capable of.

When the Olympics are complete, I expect the conflict to heat up again. We’ll have to wait and see how it goes…

@Zaku

Yep. Precisely my point. The fact is North Korea knows any such attack on the United States would only result in it’s own annihilation. Despite how we like to paint our enemies as “crazy” they’re not. They’re not crazy, they’re not suicidal and they’re not fucking stupid.

Also, nuclear submarines don’t carry nuclear weapons. They’re called nuclear because they’re nuclear powered. Nuclear powered submarines, unlike conventionally fueled ones, can basically remain at sea and submerged, even running at top speed, for practically unlimited periods of time, and they only need to be refueled every 25 years or so. The only limitation is the need to occasionally come to port to restock biological necessities such as food.

@Darth_Algar I agree about the first paragraph above. I was responding to your previous post because I thought you were saying that NK’s best bet would be to try to cripple the USA’s ability to respond, which would be impossible given its limited weapons and how widespread the US forces are.

I know “nuclear submarine” generally refers to the propulsion, so perhaps I should have written “nuclear-weapon-armed submarines”. And I know all the other details you mentioned. But what you wrote in that second paragraph above is also irrelevant to what I meant, as at least 14 current US submarines with nuclear propulsion also do have nuclear missiles (about 230 Trident missiles with 8–12 independently targetable warheads each) and are deployed for the very point of making the US nuclear-armed forces impossible to eliminate by a first-strike attack by anyone.