[dangus]

Your ugly, condescending tone is utterly misplaced, since I explicitly (and oddly for a forum like FR) noted, “FOR DISCUSSION ONLY: I’M NOT AN EXPERT...” proceeding to invite comment. Had you not written like such a blowhard, (and not been so obviously wrong), I might have appreciated your comments.

Every nuclear device the North Koreans have tested has been ground-based. While there are very advanced technologies in developing the most effective ground-penetrating warhead possible, it’s not nearly as difficult to create a bomb that can withstand terminal velocity.

Yes, you MAY destroy a mid-air-detonating warhead by knocking it into the ground, but even one NOT designed to survive such an accidental impact may very well survive it, and could even be accidentally triggered, like the Goldsboro bomb almost was. That’s right: it’s so damned easy to build an impact-detonating bomb we damned near made one accidentally.

It’s very plain that the North Koreans ARE working hard at overcoming limitations in their nuclear capabilities. DUH. That’s why I suggested we needed to do something sooner rather than later. Hopefully, that something avoids an attempted nuclear strike. Only a complete idiot would read what I wrote as saying “Yay! Let’s get bombed by the North Koreans!” But if — God forbid — Kim proves his insanity we will survive as a nation.

[Garth Tater]

Your ugly, condescending tone is utterly misplaced, since I explicitly (and oddly for a forum like FR) noted, “FOR DISCUSSION ONLY: I’M NOT AN EXPERT..

I didn't think it was ugly, but you are right about the condescension. "NOT AN EXPERT" and "FOR DISCUSSION ONLY" doesn't justify your war mongering but if you are going to do it I would appreciate it if you put a little more thought into your efforts. It's kind of hard to "discuss" your ideas without pointing out the errors in your assumptions right up front.

While there are very advanced technologies in developing the most effective ground-penetrating warhead possible, it’s not nearly as difficult to create a bomb that can withstand terminal velocity.

Spoken like a true expert - which you have admitted you are not. Attaching a proximity detector (bought off the shelf right over the border in China) vs developing a nuclear weapon that can detonate after hitting the ground. Yeah, right, those two are in the same ball park and yet you said that it would have to be detonated on impact and hence less destructive than a detonation at height... kind of makes the rest of your post worthless when you screw up that early in your "discussion." An intentionally dirty nuke detonated over a large city can kill millions but with your caveat that it has to be detonated on impact you throw out that possibility and talk about a few hundred casualties. Yep. Lot's of condescension in my tone.

That’s right: it’s so damned easy to build an impact-detonating bomb we damned near made one accidentally.

And you know that it almost went off how? Ah, your "expert" opinion again.

Only a complete idiot would read what I wrote as saying “Yay! Let’s get bombed by the North Koreans!”

Only a complete idiot would say that we can attack a nuclear and biologically armed nation and expect to suffer only a few hundred casualties.