there have been warships there for a few months now, including non nuke subs.

Oh, I wouldn't be surprised to find out we have had several attack subs off the coast of N. Korea that we just aren't advertising. I mean it kind of defeats the point of subs to adverise their location.

lol, i agree, but obama doesn't. they had an article about 4 or 5 months ago about how a fleet of ballistic nuke subs had the nukes taken off, and were loaded to the brim with non nuke tactical missiles that were engaged in exercises off the coast of NK....

OHHH!! When you said "non-nuke" subs I thought you were referring to N. Korea's diesel fleet. That's why I was saying we had attack subs in the neighborhood (probably following each Korean sub at striking distance).

I'm all for taking Nukes off of our boomers. We never used one anyway (That includes weak willed presidents such as Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Nixon, Kennedy, Carter, Ford, Johnson, and Clinton). Cruise missiles are perfectly fine with me, we'll actually fire one of those things on occasion. What I'd really like to see us use is some of our fuel/air devices. I'd like to see what kind of devastation those things would rain down on a populated area. Just so we know whether or not we should keep stockpiling them.

Many of our boomers are being refitted for special ops. Our attack subs are typically armed with cruise missiles with small nukes of 2500 mile range and conventional warheads of 1500 mile range. Once the usefulness of the cruise missile was realized, additional vertical launch tubes were added to the attack subs. Rearming of our subs would not be necessary since plenty of both types of weapons are typically carried.

Once again South Korea and Obama "Pussed Out" If they would have hnadled North Korea when they sunk one of the South's ships this wouldn't have happened.

Hell, if we would go after them everytime shipments are intercepted from North Korea to Iran, Syria, Libya, Hamas, Hezbullah, Cuba and many other Axis countries.