North Korea - how serious should we take them?
Discussion
TheRainMaker said:
Do we (UK) have any sort of defense system to counter this sort of nuclear threat?
Or is it really as simple as "if you don't fire we won't" gentlemen's agreement?
The nuclear developed world use the principle of MAD (mutually assured destruction).Or is it really as simple as "if you don't fire we won't" gentlemen's agreement?
You fire on us, you will shortly be glass.
It's why Corbyn is such a lunatic, he would lose the deterrent because he wont unequivocally say he would fire if fired upon.
It's MAD that has kept the peace since the nuclear age started. Some say USA scientists leaked all the USA nuclear secrets to Russia as they saw it as the only way to ensure the USA wouldn't use the weapons again, if Russia could hit back.
skyrover said:
scherzkeks said:
What we do know is that Kim has yet to actually do anything, and our propaganda mills are running at full tilt to generate support for a potential strike.
Apart from randomly shell South Korean towns and sink South Korean warships?The SK navy torpedoed their own boat and shelled their own town to make the case.
Ain't that right keks?
skyrover said:
scherzkeks said:
What we do know is that Kim has yet to actually do anything, and our propaganda mills are running at full tilt to generate support for a potential strike.
Apart from randomly shell South Korean towns and sink South Korean warships?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incid...
And specifically:
"March 26, 2010: A South Korean naval vessel, the ROKS Cheonan, was allegedly sunk by a North Korean torpedo near Baengnyeong Island in the Yellow Sea. "
"The United Nations Security Council made a Presidential Statement condemning the attack but without identifying the attacker.[35]"
As so often, on closer inspection, your claims fall apart.
scherzkeks said:
These incidents have been going on for years and cut both ways, particularly at the border.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incid...
And specifically:
"March 26, 2010: A South Korean naval vessel, the ROKS Cheonan, was allegedly sunk by a North Korean torpedo near Baengnyeong Island in the Yellow Sea. "
"The United Nations Security Council made a Presidential Statement condemning the attack but without identifying the attacker.[35]"
As so often, on closer inspection, your claims fall apart.
That's desperate stuff, even for you keks.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incid...
And specifically:
"March 26, 2010: A South Korean naval vessel, the ROKS Cheonan, was allegedly sunk by a North Korean torpedo near Baengnyeong Island in the Yellow Sea. "
"The United Nations Security Council made a Presidential Statement condemning the attack but without identifying the attacker.[35]"
As so often, on closer inspection, your claims fall apart.
I see the armchair generals are out in force on this thread.
To those who think that a first "surgical" strike is possible, here's the Pentagons view
http://time.com/4848183/north-korea-military-strik...
Here's why the last thing you want is to attack North Korea anyway
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/05/world/asia/nort...
'After all, a pre-emptive American attack would very likely fail to wipe out North Korea’s arsenal, because some of the North’s facilities are deep in mountain caves or underground and many of its missiles are hidden on mobile launchers.
The North has warned that it would immediately retaliate by launching nuclear missiles.'
Now settle down and watch as this plays out exactly as most sensible people see it playing out and we all learn to live with a nuclear NK.
As for our own capabilities to shoot down NK missiles I'd say the chances are about the same as our ability to shoot down Russian ICBM's, zero.
But, just like the rest of the world, we don't have to worry about it. Only America sees NK with ICBM's as some kind of apocalyptic scenario, or rather wants us all to see it as such.
To those who think that a first "surgical" strike is possible, here's the Pentagons view
http://time.com/4848183/north-korea-military-strik...
Here's why the last thing you want is to attack North Korea anyway
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/05/world/asia/nort...
'After all, a pre-emptive American attack would very likely fail to wipe out North Korea’s arsenal, because some of the North’s facilities are deep in mountain caves or underground and many of its missiles are hidden on mobile launchers.
The North has warned that it would immediately retaliate by launching nuclear missiles.'
Now settle down and watch as this plays out exactly as most sensible people see it playing out and we all learn to live with a nuclear NK.
As for our own capabilities to shoot down NK missiles I'd say the chances are about the same as our ability to shoot down Russian ICBM's, zero.
But, just like the rest of the world, we don't have to worry about it. Only America sees NK with ICBM's as some kind of apocalyptic scenario, or rather wants us all to see it as such.
Atomic12C said:
There is a good argument that the US have out welcomed their stay in S.Korea. Many would agree that after the end of WWII, instead of furthering their own global policing and fear of communism by pushing on up towards China that they should have concentrated on solidifying Korea to stand on its own feet and then promptly removed their forces from the land.
Many would then argue that this would have left Korea open to the pressures of China and communism would have forced its way in.
Is this a bad or good thing at the time? Well, this can also be argued one way or the other. But probably best for a separate thread.
The point about solving this militarily. Well my answer to this is that I think its the only way left. I do agree that historically the US and other forces in the region have done nothing but provoke N.Korea in to developing nuclear weapons. That aspect is ridiculous and to the point whereby the US has created a dire situation all by its own doing.
But diplomacy isn't working and sanctions are not working.
The messages coming out of N.Korea only point to their desperation in attacking the US. They would seem certain that once a weapon is capable of damaging the USA that they will use it as soon as possible.
This puts the USA in to a defensive pro-active mode, in which I'm think they will have to make concessions to China in order that a full scale wipe-out of N.Korea's military capacity can take place. But how likely are China to agree and how large a concession are they likely to demand? Its a tricky one.
A total first-strike wipeout of N.Korea military is a possibility. Targeting not only the known nuclear sites (which are well known due to the amount of high definition spy satellites hovering over the place, but also targeting the 100's of artillery positions along the border.
A mixture of small tactical nuclear warheads plus large bombing runs coupled with the use of land cruise missiles would have a huge impact.
But the risk is once this starts there is always enough time for a few N.Korea buttons to be pressed that would impact on civilian targets.
Dire situation which ever way you look at it.
Whilst I still think the best way to go is for the US to back off politically and verbally, but remain where they are and leave China to continue working NK... though a first strike is an option, albeit a dangerous one.Many would then argue that this would have left Korea open to the pressures of China and communism would have forced its way in.
Is this a bad or good thing at the time? Well, this can also be argued one way or the other. But probably best for a separate thread.
The point about solving this militarily. Well my answer to this is that I think its the only way left. I do agree that historically the US and other forces in the region have done nothing but provoke N.Korea in to developing nuclear weapons. That aspect is ridiculous and to the point whereby the US has created a dire situation all by its own doing.
But diplomacy isn't working and sanctions are not working.
The messages coming out of N.Korea only point to their desperation in attacking the US. They would seem certain that once a weapon is capable of damaging the USA that they will use it as soon as possible.
This puts the USA in to a defensive pro-active mode, in which I'm think they will have to make concessions to China in order that a full scale wipe-out of N.Korea's military capacity can take place. But how likely are China to agree and how large a concession are they likely to demand? Its a tricky one.
A total first-strike wipeout of N.Korea military is a possibility. Targeting not only the known nuclear sites (which are well known due to the amount of high definition spy satellites hovering over the place, but also targeting the 100's of artillery positions along the border.
A mixture of small tactical nuclear warheads plus large bombing runs coupled with the use of land cruise missiles would have a huge impact.
But the risk is once this starts there is always enough time for a few N.Korea buttons to be pressed that would impact on civilian targets.
Dire situation which ever way you look at it.
One other aspect to factor in is what happens after. There are 25 million people there. The vast majority with no money, no food stores, no hope of anything. The proportion becoming migrants would be hugs. SK certainly couldn't cope. I have no idea what China's take on this would be, they aren't known for their charity.
TheRainMaker said:
Do we (UK) have any sort of defense system to counter this sort of nuclear threat?
Unfortunately we don't.The US doesn't either. IIRC they have been working on one since the 1980s when Raegan started their "star wars" project.
30 Years later... http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/22/intercept-att...
Efbe said:
TheRainMaker said:
Do we (UK) have any sort of defense system to counter this sort of nuclear threat?
Unfortunately we don't.The US doesn't either. IIRC they have been working on one since the 1980s when Raegan started their "star wars" project.
30 Years later... http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/22/intercept-att...
They are obviously just tweeking it. You're bound to get a few failures during development.
Efbe said:
Unfortunately we don't.
The US doesn't either. IIRC they have been working on one since the 1980s when Raegan started their "star wars" project.
30 Years later... http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/22/intercept-att...
I remember that in the news at the time,The US doesn't either. IIRC they have been working on one since the 1980s when Raegan started their "star wars" project.
30 Years later... http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/22/intercept-att...
I wouldn't be surprised if there has been significant development in laser tech over recent years which we don't know about,cruise and icbms' are quite old tech when you consider that the Nazis were throwing v2 rockets at us In the 1940s',
they are just hardware now,warfare has moved on into the electronic age,look at the tech in the hubble telescope and recent space projects etc don't tell me that that technology hasn't been harnessed and developed for defence purposes.
just my opinion of course.
There is no real defence against an ICBM. Even if an effective missle/laser based defence system existed that can track a target travelling thousands of m/s. You have virtually no way on knowing where re-entry will be. So you would have to deploy your defence system to provide near country wide protection. The best defence I imagine is still launching another nuclear weapon and detonating it near or in the path of an incoming weapon in the hope to 'disrupt' the enemy missile. To ensure you maximise the disruptive effect, the counter weapon would probably need to be in the 300kt+ range. The problem with this is the catastrophic damage to digital coms and infrastructure that would occur as a result. There is potential that more deaths/injuries could occur as a result of doing this than if the enemy weapon had actually hit it's target (yield dependant obviously). Just think northern US, mid winter, electricity, gas, telephone and transport network collapses. Panic, looting, mass exodus etc etc.
Should an effective ICBM defence system be developed it would prompt Russia, and China to update their own weapon systems to compensate. Be this increase number of warheads targeted at each city/location or increase yields. Either way it could escalate to a new arms race.
As others have said I believe we will learn to live with a nuclear NK.
Should an effective ICBM defence system be developed it would prompt Russia, and China to update their own weapon systems to compensate. Be this increase number of warheads targeted at each city/location or increase yields. Either way it could escalate to a new arms race.
As others have said I believe we will learn to live with a nuclear NK.
Cobnapint said:
scherzkeks said:
These incidents have been going on for years and cut both ways, particularly at the border.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incid...
And specifically:
"March 26, 2010: A South Korean naval vessel, the ROKS Cheonan, was allegedly sunk by a North Korean torpedo near Baengnyeong Island in the Yellow Sea. "
"The United Nations Security Council made a Presidential Statement condemning the attack but without identifying the attacker.[35]"
As so often, on closer inspection, your claims fall apart.
That's desperate stuff, even for you keks.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incid...
And specifically:
"March 26, 2010: A South Korean naval vessel, the ROKS Cheonan, was allegedly sunk by a North Korean torpedo near Baengnyeong Island in the Yellow Sea. "
"The United Nations Security Council made a Presidential Statement condemning the attack but without identifying the attacker.[35]"
As so often, on closer inspection, your claims fall apart.
scherzkeks said:
Cobnapint said:
scherzkeks said:
These incidents have been going on for years and cut both ways, particularly at the border.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incid...
And specifically:
"March 26, 2010: A South Korean naval vessel, the ROKS Cheonan, was allegedly sunk by a North Korean torpedo near Baengnyeong Island in the Yellow Sea. "
"The United Nations Security Council made a Presidential Statement condemning the attack but without identifying the attacker.[35]"
As so often, on closer inspection, your claims fall apart.
That's desperate stuff, even for you keks.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incid...
And specifically:
"March 26, 2010: A South Korean naval vessel, the ROKS Cheonan, was allegedly sunk by a North Korean torpedo near Baengnyeong Island in the Yellow Sea. "
"The United Nations Security Council made a Presidential Statement condemning the attack but without identifying the attacker.[35]"
As so often, on closer inspection, your claims fall apart.
Have a little read through this, if there's anything you don't understand about traces of RDX torpedo explosive being found on the hull, or substantial torpedo fragments, consistent with the type used by NK (complete with markings) being dredged up from the sea bed at the site of the sinking, or anything else - no matter how small, please do not hesitate to ask.
We are here to help.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinki...
Cobnapint said:
scherzkeks said:
Cobnapint said:
scherzkeks said:
These incidents have been going on for years and cut both ways, particularly at the border.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incid...
And specifically:
"March 26, 2010: A South Korean naval vessel, the ROKS Cheonan, was allegedly sunk by a North Korean torpedo near Baengnyeong Island in the Yellow Sea. "
"The United Nations Security Council made a Presidential Statement condemning the attack but without identifying the attacker.[35]"
As so often, on closer inspection, your claims fall apart.
That's desperate stuff, even for you keks.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incid...
And specifically:
"March 26, 2010: A South Korean naval vessel, the ROKS Cheonan, was allegedly sunk by a North Korean torpedo near Baengnyeong Island in the Yellow Sea. "
"The United Nations Security Council made a Presidential Statement condemning the attack but without identifying the attacker.[35]"
As so often, on closer inspection, your claims fall apart.
Have a little read through this, if there's anything you don't understand about traces of RDX torpedo explosive being found on the hull, or substantial torpedo fragments, consistent with the type used by NK (complete with markings) being dredged up from the sea bed at the site of the sinking, or anything else - no matter how small, please do not hesitate to ask.
We are here to help.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinki...
Last paragraph;
'North Korea denied that it was responsible for the sinking. North Korea's further offer to aid an open investigation was disregarded. China dismissed the official scenario presented by South Korea and the United States as not credible. An investigation by the Russian Navy also did not concur with the report. The United Nations Security Council made a Presidential Statement condemning the attack but without identifying the attacker.'
So I'm afraid that incident does not back you up.
gadgetmac said:
Cobnapint said:
scherzkeks said:
Cobnapint said:
scherzkeks said:
These incidents have been going on for years and cut both ways, particularly at the border.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incid...
And specifically:
"March 26, 2010: A South Korean naval vessel, the ROKS Cheonan, was allegedly sunk by a North Korean torpedo near Baengnyeong Island in the Yellow Sea. "
"The United Nations Security Council made a Presidential Statement condemning the attack but without identifying the attacker.[35]"
As so often, on closer inspection, your claims fall apart.
That's desperate stuff, even for you keks.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incid...
And specifically:
"March 26, 2010: A South Korean naval vessel, the ROKS Cheonan, was allegedly sunk by a North Korean torpedo near Baengnyeong Island in the Yellow Sea. "
"The United Nations Security Council made a Presidential Statement condemning the attack but without identifying the attacker.[35]"
As so often, on closer inspection, your claims fall apart.
Have a little read through this, if there's anything you don't understand about traces of RDX torpedo explosive being found on the hull, or substantial torpedo fragments, consistent with the type used by NK (complete with markings) being dredged up from the sea bed at the site of the sinking, or anything else - no matter how small, please do not hesitate to ask.
We are here to help.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinki...
Last paragraph;
'North Korea denied that it was responsible for the sinking. North Korea's further offer to aid an open investigation was disregarded. China dismissed the official scenario presented by South Korea and the United States as not credible. An investigation by the Russian Navy also did not concur with the report. The United Nations Security Council made a Presidential Statement condemning the attack but without identifying the attacker.'
So I'm afraid that incident does not back you up.
North Korea denying it - Russia and China not supporting a multi-nation wide ranging Investigation.
Lol.
Cobnapint said:
gadgetmac said:
Cobnapint said:
scherzkeks said:
Cobnapint said:
scherzkeks said:
These incidents have been going on for years and cut both ways, particularly at the border.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incid...
And specifically:
"March 26, 2010: A South Korean naval vessel, the ROKS Cheonan, was allegedly sunk by a North Korean torpedo near Baengnyeong Island in the Yellow Sea. "
"The United Nations Security Council made a Presidential Statement condemning the attack but without identifying the attacker.[35]"
As so often, on closer inspection, your claims fall apart.
That's desperate stuff, even for you keks.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incid...
And specifically:
"March 26, 2010: A South Korean naval vessel, the ROKS Cheonan, was allegedly sunk by a North Korean torpedo near Baengnyeong Island in the Yellow Sea. "
"The United Nations Security Council made a Presidential Statement condemning the attack but without identifying the attacker.[35]"
As so often, on closer inspection, your claims fall apart.
Have a little read through this, if there's anything you don't understand about traces of RDX torpedo explosive being found on the hull, or substantial torpedo fragments, consistent with the type used by NK (complete with markings) being dredged up from the sea bed at the site of the sinking, or anything else - no matter how small, please do not hesitate to ask.
We are here to help.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinki...
Last paragraph;
'North Korea denied that it was responsible for the sinking. North Korea's further offer to aid an open investigation was disregarded. China dismissed the official scenario presented by South Korea and the United States as not credible. An investigation by the Russian Navy also did not concur with the report. The United Nations Security Council made a Presidential Statement condemning the attack but without identifying the attacker.'
So I'm afraid that incident does not back you up.
North Korea denying it - Russia and China not supporting a multi-nation wide ranging Investigation.
Lol.
Lol.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff