Strike on North Korea

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41289532

I think NK will succeed with the former but hopelessly fail with the latter.

They don't have to have the same amount of nukes as the US, just enough to make the US think twice about attacking. That's a form of equilibrium.

Originally Posted by Catfish

The question really is whether one should further wait to kill a rabid dog, so all is becoming worse in the end.

But it should be done to remove the glorious leader and his entourage, not bomb civilians. Any chances China would support that?

Nope. Not a chance.

Let's break it down. During the Cold War both the US and Soviet Union were terrified that either would try for a decapitation strike, so they created systems in order to discourage such a thing from happening. The US created a system where there would be political and military back-ups and advanced warning systems, the Soviet Union developed one that would automatically launch their arsenal if certain conditions were met. The UK just told its submarine captains to listen to Radio Four.
Either which way, if Kim Jong-un is removed from the equation then there is a good chance that the North Korean strategic missile forces will receive orders to fire. It could be something as simple as they're told to listen to Radio Pyongyang, and if that goes off the air then they fire.

Even without the risk of thousands, if not millions being killed in nuclear fire, there's another reason that China won't back a mission to remove Kim Jong-un. The chaos caused by a sudden vacuum in government, which then creates a giant humanitarian crisis right on Chinas doorstep which it is not equipped to deal with.

So, Kim Jong-un isn't going anywhere, and to be honest, all the talk by the likes of the ROK of 'decapitation strikes' or special forces squads training to launch such missions is just increasing the risk that North Korea will preemptively launch a nuclear strike in the mistaken belief that it is about to be attacked. Let's not forget that their equipment is old and not the most reliable, and if they were to have an incident like the Soviet Union did in 1983, would there be a Korean version of Stanislaw Petrov?

[blackswan40]

But even when/if the sanctions start to byte and the food prices in the shops go kitty wompass . due to lack of stocks and regular suply
The North Korean people start to go hungry then starve the fear of getting shot by your own army is not so bad because your going tobe day 3 months anyway as starvation kicks in if you get a bullet in your head or bayonetted in the neck you've no worry's any more your dead.
China's worst fears may come true hundreds of thousand north Koreans heading over the border to China
also they maybe a coup by his Generals or theres that much unrest that the country desends into anarchy a North Korean Civil war so to speak and the pesants are climbing over the walls of his palace to get to him to string him up wouldn't China or the UN be forced to get involved because as the DPRK Collapsese China and the free world would not want a scenario where Kim Il Sung orders a nuke strike on Guam Japan and Usa if I'm going to die ill take the world into the abyss with me
A North Korea Occupied by China may not be a bad option the lesser of the too evils so to speak

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by blackswan40

But even when/if the sanctions start to byte and the food prices in the shops go kitty wompass . due to lack of stocks and regular suply
The North Korean people start to go hungry then starve the fear of getting shot by your own army is not so bad because your going tobe day 3 months anyway as starvation kicks in if you get a bullet in your head or bayonetted in the neck you've no worry's any more your dead.

That is indeed a real risk. KJU is trying to change his economy, but he can't prop it up forever. I think that if it looked as though something like that was going to happen then the PRC might step in with emergency food aid. The ROK is already looking to send humanitarian aid to the North, because a collapse or revolution in the DPRK is not the rosy ending we in the west think it might be.

China's worst fears may come true hundreds of thousand north Koreans heading over the border to China
also they maybe a coup by his Generals or theres that much unrest that the country desends into anarchy a North Korean Civil war so to speak and the pesants are climbing over the walls of his palace to get to him to string him up wouldn't China or the UN be forced to get involved because as the DPRK Collapsese China and the free world would not want a scenario where Kim Il Sung orders a nuke strike on Guam Japan and Usa if I'm going to die ill take the world into the abyss with me

Well, Kim Il Sung is already dead, so I wouldn't worry too much about him, but his grandson might decide to launch everything if his government is about to collapse, yes, he might do the same if China and the UN send forces in as well.

A North Korea Occupied by China may not be a bad option the lesser of the too evils so to speak

Perhaps, but not so much for China since Beijing will have a large radioactive hole in it.

I think people need to realise that it's not in our interest to remove Kim Jong-un, because in the act of removing him we risk setting off a nuclear war. Be it through military action, or through starving the DPRK until a popular uprising occurs. Instability and nuclear weapons, particularly nuclear ICBMs are not a good mix, remember how nervous people were during the Yeltsin years about Russian nuclear weapons going walkabout? Do we really want to create such a situation in Korea?

[blackswan40]

When DPRK test another Missile and it went Wonky Donkey landed in a the suburbs of a Chinese or Russian city with no warhead just what rocket fuel the missile had what kind a damage would that do to ground zero the point of impact would China or Russia
have a rethink or would they still sit on the fence

I've just turned 52 this month I've had a good innings in the 1980's if World III had happened trust me I wouldn't have of gone to B & Q for a large tin of white emulsion to paint my windows white to reflect the heat rays back
I would of spent the money on Newcastle Brown n got Stoated in those days in
the 1980's Nuclear Warfare Boffins estimated 100-150 Missiles of all sizes from 1mgtn -500mgtns would be dropped on Blighty Ville England would have been the most radio active place on Earth but it might have brought the tulips up 4 months early spring might have come early
if chit happens where all in the same boat the big blue marble aint that big anymore Once the lids off Pandoras box no matter how much ya try you cant put the lid back on E=MC2

If the unthinkable happens id take a leaf of STEEDS Book n Listen to some Bad and ensure my fridge was well stocked with Newkie Browns

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I think people need to realise that it's not in our interest to remove Kim Jong-un, because in the act of removing him we risk setting off a nuclear war. Be it through military action, or through starving the DPRK until a popular uprising occurs. Instability and nuclear weapons, particularly nuclear ICBMs are not a good mix, remember how nervous people were during the Yeltsin years about Russian nuclear weapons going walkabout? Do we really want to create such a situation in Korea?

There are some that seem to think they already did go on walk about in the direction of N.K. There are some people that think N.K. neither has the brains nor the ability to produce their own delivery systems in this short time. That they got them from someone else, some say China others say Russian sources.

If they don't want a nuclear war then they ought to stop launching them over a sovereign nation. Can you imagine the response if one those missiles malfunctioned and took a header into Japan? How about we simply remove the cause rather than waving around a piece a paper in our hands.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

There are some that seem to think they already did go on walk about in the direction of N.K. There are some people that think N.K. neither has the brains nor the ability to produce their own delivery systems in this short time. That they got them from someone else, some say China others say Russian sources.

If they don't want a nuclear war then they ought to stop launching them over a sovereign nation. Can you imagine the response if one those missiles malfunctioned and took a header into Japan? How about we simply remove the cause rather than waving around a piece a paper in our hands.

It can't be ruled out, but to be honest I think when it comes to the nuclear side of things it's pretty much a home-grown affair. When you compare how long it took the US with the Manhattan Project to how long it took the last nuclear power before the DPRK which IIRC was Pakistan, you find that the time between program start and bomb creation has shrunk, primarily because the basic designs are already fully researched and in many instances are in the open domain. Any nation could, given the right resources, create a nuclear bomb. They could also then shrink that weapon eventually and mount it on a warhead.
In regards to their missiles, a fair bit of reverse engineering has taken place, they started with the Scuds, and have done quite well in the medium range department, but the sudden development of the Hwasong 12 and 14 could well have come from the acquisition of an RD-250 engine or an entire R-36 ICBM. Likewise the Pukkuksong-1 is probably inspired by some early Chinese SLBMs, which in turn are inspired by Soviet ones. I mean both the PRC and the DPRK got some Golf SSBs from the Russians for 'scrapping'.
Either which way, if we're worried about proliferation now, with the Kim government in charge, imagine how problematic it would be with no-one in charge.

Agree that they shouldn't throw ICBMs over countries, but technically they're not actually penetrating Japanese airspace, and in regards to something falling on Japan by mistake, I think that would probably be covered under the same sort of scenarios as falling space debris, so perhaps the Space Liability Convention, which the DPRK (but not the ROK) is a signatory of. Although I don't know how a person would actually be able to sue the DPRK, perhaps they could settle out of court for a lifetime supply of Kim Jong-un literature? In all seriousness though, the trajectory that they tend to use is fairly intentionally across a part of Japan that is probably the lowest population density of the entire islands. They're deliberately trying not to overfly a high-risk area, they could feasibly launch it right over Tokyo, but they don't, they try to thread the gap between Hokkaido and the rest of Japan. The trouble they have is that they are, as a nation, fairly hemmed in by other nations. Look at this map:



If they fire it too far north it goes too close to Russia, they don't want to do that because Russia is nominally an ally. They fire too far south and it goes over South Korea, which whilst is not an ally they're trying to take a slightly softer tone on in order to detach it from America, also there's a whole load of US bases down there, and it won't end well. They could fire it over mainland Japan, literally over Tokyo, but that would also not end well...so they choose the lesser of the evils and fire it through the Hokkaido gap, mostly avoiding inhabited areas. Of course, there could be trajectory issues either side of that line, so it's not ideal, but if you want to fire a missile into the Pacific it's the best route to use.

So why would they want to fire the missile into the Pacific? Well until recently they've been lofting their missiles, firing them in a high ballistic arc so that they land in the sea of Japan:



Now that has a downside in that when the missiles come back down, they're coming back down at a much sharper re-entry angle than they would ordinarily do, which means that the data that you're getting for the re-entry vehicles is not representative of real operational conditions. So in order to perfect their re-entry vehicle they need to fire their test missiles in a more traditional ballistic arc rather than lofting. Thus, they fire it over Japan and into the Pacific. It's not ideal, but I don't think that they have many other options if they want to perfect their missile program.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Oberon

It can't be ruled out, but to be honest I think when it comes to the nuclear side of things it's pretty much a home-grown affair. When you compare how long it took the US with the Manhattan Project to how long it took the last nuclear power before the DPRK which IIRC was Pakistan, you find that the time between program start and bomb creation has shrunk, primarily because the basic designs are already fully researched and in many instances are in the open domain. Any nation could, given the right resources, create a nuclear bomb. They could also then shrink that weapon eventually and mount it on a warhead.
In regards to their missiles, a fair bit of reverse engineering has taken place, they started with the Scuds, and have done quite well in the medium range department, but the sudden development of the Hwasong 12 and 14 could well have come from the acquisition of an RD-250 engine or an entire R-36 ICBM. Likewise the Pukkuksong-1 is probably inspired by some early Chinese SLBMs, which in turn are inspired by Soviet ones. I mean both the PRC and the DPRK got some Golf SSBs from the Russians for 'scrapping'.
Either which way, if we're worried about proliferation now, with the Kim government in charge, imagine how problematic it would be with no-one in charge.

Agree that they shouldn't throw ICBMs over countries, but technically they're not actually penetrating Japanese airspace, and in regards to something falling on Japan by mistake, I think that would probably be covered under the same sort of scenarios as falling space debris, so perhaps the Space Liability Convention, which the DPRK (but not the ROK) is a signatory of. Although I don't know how a person would actually be able to sue the DPRK, perhaps they could settle out of court for a lifetime supply of Kim Jong-un literature? In all seriousness though, the trajectory that they tend to use is fairly intentionally across a part of Japan that is probably the lowest population density of the entire islands. They're deliberately trying not to overfly a high-risk area, they could feasibly launch it right over Tokyo, but they don't, they try to thread the gap between Hokkaido and the rest of Japan. The trouble they have is that they are, as a nation, fairly hemmed in by other nations. Look at this map:



If they fire it too far north it goes too close to Russia, they don't want to do that because Russia is nominally an ally. They fire too far south and it goes over South Korea, which whilst is not an ally they're trying to take a slightly softer tone on in order to detach it from America, also there's a whole load of US bases down there, and it won't end well. They could fire it over mainland Japan, literally over Tokyo, but that would also not end well...so they choose the lesser of the evils and fire it through the Hokkaido gap, mostly avoiding inhabited areas. Of course, there could be trajectory issues either side of that line, so it's not ideal, but if you want to fire a missile into the Pacific it's the best route to use.

So why would they want to fire the missile into the Pacific? Well until recently they've been lofting their missiles, firing them in a high ballistic arc so that they land in the sea of Japan:



Now that has a downside in that when the missiles come back down, they're coming back down at a much sharper re-entry angle than they would ordinarily do, which means that the data that you're getting for the re-entry vehicles is not representative of real operational conditions. So in order to perfect their re-entry vehicle they need to fire their test missiles in a more traditional ballistic arc rather than lofting. Thus, they fire it over Japan and into the Pacific. It's not ideal, but I don't think that they have many other options if they want to perfect their missile program.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2509425&postcount=363 I agree completely! I neglected to post this previously:

North Korea's latest long-range missile tests have all shared a common factor — they're shot nearly straight up in the air to avoid flying over any neighboring countries. But according to Mike Elleman, the senior fellow for missile defense at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, if North Korea wants a truly reliable intercontinental ballistic missile, it will have to eventually fire one at or over another country.
When a missile fires almost vertically, the missile's warhead, or reentry vehicle, enters the earth at an angle almost perpendicular to the earth's surface. Elleman says this provides a symmetrical distribution of heat and pressure on the vehicle, which travels at many times the speed of sound.
But when an ICBM has to actually fire at an angle to cover long distances, as is the whole point of an ICBM, it faces much different challenges. "When it comes in at a flattened out trajectory, it will experience a longer heating time and mechanical loads or de-acceleration loads over a longer period of time," as well as asymmetrical pressure and heat, said Elleman.
So while North Korea's latest missile tests tell them a lot about how to launch a rocket and drop a warhead back down, they don't tell them much about fighting the earth's atmosphere or how to guide the missile.

http://www.businessinsider.com/north-korea-icbm-reliable-overfly-2017-8 Throw in Platypus's astute observation :

I don't know what the legality would be for Japan to shoot down a missile that is not in their sovereign airspace.
Anything above the Karman Line (100km) is recognized as international space (no pun intended)
Anything under 30km is considered territorial airspace. The area between 30km and 100 km has not been decided on an international level

. At this point we do not have an international incident that can be challenged.

[Mr Quatro]

What defensive weapon can you fire at these NK missile launches?

What ship borne weapon would knock one down?

We don't have any do we?

I thought the US missile defense system in Hawaii on Kauai and the one in Alaska was to target warheads on their points of reentry.

But these missiles fall apart over the Pacific so that won't work on them. These two destroyers that just had a crash with cargo/freighters had some kind of Aegis system I think they call it ... would that knock down a NK missile launch?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_...Defense_System

The Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System (Aegis BMD or ABMD) is a United States Department of Defense Missile Defense Agency program developed to provide missile defense against short to intermediate-range ballistic missiles.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

What defensive weapon can you fire at these NK missile launches?

What ship borne weapon would knock one down?

We don't have any do we?

I thought the US missile defense system in Hawaii on Kauai and the one in Alaska was to target warheads on their points of reentry.

But these missiles fall apart over the Pacific so that won't work on them. These two destroyers that just had a crash with cargo/freighters had some kind of Aegis system I think they call it ... would that knock down a NK missile launch?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_...Defense_System

That's the other kicker in this equation, by the time the Hwasong-12s are passing over Japan, they are travelling at an altitude of around 500km. The SM-3 which is the missile used in the AEGIS system has (AFAIK) never been tested at that altitude. The IIA is meant to have some capability against ICBMs, but the maximum it's officially designated for is IRBMs. If I recall correctly the highest contact that the SM-3 has intercepted was the satellite back in 2008 and that was at an altitude of 240km.

The AEGIS ships are there for stuff coming in to hit Japan, and even then it's a bit of a crapshoot, and the system isn't infallible. Likewise with THAAD. One thing that the DPRK could do to bypass all the THAAD systems deployed in South Korea is just launch from behind them, all the radars and interceptors are pointed north. If a submarine launches SLBMs from behind the THAAD, the THAAD is boned.

Against America there's the Ground Based Midcourse Defence system in Alaska, but that can be overwhelmed since it has a limited number of missiles and it wouldn't just launch one interceptor per ICBM, it would launch multiple ones, which means you just need a factor of ICBMs more than would be salvo launched against you and that is Americas primary defence nullified and they have to hope that the AEGIS can handle the incoming missiles and warheads in the very short amount of time that they'll have to intercept (think of the game 'Missile Command' but on maximum difficulty).

So...yeah, the US isn't invulnerable behind a missile shield, it can get hit, and Japan and South Korea are definitely not invulnerable. They would get hit in a war, and they would get hit hard. Sure, the DPRK would be defeated, the US and its allies would win, that much is a given...but it would be very Pyrrhic.

[Rockstar]

So its OK for a foreign government to pop off balistic missles over the UK. Provided of course the missiles trajectory is over less densely populated areas. Who knew. All you need to do is ignore it and whallaa we have peace in our time.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

So its OK for a foreign government to pop off balistic missles over the UK. Provided of course the missiles trajectory is over less densely populated areas. Who knew. All you need to do is ignore it and whallaa we have peace in our time.

[mapuc]

(Some off topic thoughts)

I have not only here in this thread and other threads about KJU and NK read comments on this topic but also among friends on FB and other forums(only reading)

Some say attack, "Attack at any cost before KJU destroy 1/2 of the world" While some say " Now hold your horses and think twice before acting foolish"

The problem is both could be right or both could be wrong.

Markus

(End of Some off topic thoughts)

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by mapuc

(Some off topic thoughts)

I have not only here in this thread and other threads about KJU and NK read comments on this topic but also among friends on FB and other forums(only reading)

Some say attack, "Attack at any cost before KJU destroy 1/2 of the world" While some say " Now hold your horses and think twice before acting foolish"

The problem is both could be right or both could be wrong.

Markus

(End of Some off topic thoughts)

That's not off topic ... your just reporting European thoughts about NK and how to handle the problem. It's not a game of course, but if it was a game ... would you play your peace plan card or throw a war gauntlet card down in the middle?

These Korean's are hard to read they don't think the same as we do

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Oberon

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Oberon

That's the other kicker in this equation, by the time the Hwasong-12s are passing over Japan, they are travelling at an altitude of around 500km. The SM-3 which is the missile used in the AEGIS system has (AFAIK) never been tested at that altitude. The IIA is meant to have some capability against ICBMs, but the maximum it's officially designated for is IRBMs. If I recall correctly the highest contact that the SM-3 has intercepted was the satellite back in 2008 and that was at an altitude of 240km.

The AEGIS ships are there for stuff coming in to hit Japan, and even then it's a bit of a crapshoot, and the system isn't infallible. Likewise with THAAD. One thing that the DPRK could do to bypass all the THAAD systems deployed in South Korea is just launch from behind them, all the radars and interceptors are pointed north. If a submarine launches SLBMs from behind the THAAD, the THAAD is boned.

Against America there's the Ground Based Midcourse Defence system in Alaska, but that can be overwhelmed since it has a limited number of missiles and it wouldn't just launch one interceptor per ICBM, it would launch multiple ones, which means you just need a factor of ICBMs more than would be salvo launched against you and that is Americas primary defence nullified and they have to hope that the AEGIS can handle the incoming missiles and warheads in the very short amount of time that they'll have to intercept (think of the game 'Missile Command' but on maximum difficulty).

So...yeah, the US isn't invulnerable behind a missile shield, it can get hit, and Japan and South Korea are definitely not invulnerable. They would get hit in a war, and they would get hit hard. Sure, the DPRK would be defeated, the US and its allies would win, that much is a given...but it would be very Pyrrhic.

So basically your saying that no one is sure we could knock anyone's ICBM missile down upon launch or in this case a high fly over Japan?

You sure seem to know a lot for a young man ... Keep up the good work, sometimes your right on and sometimes your not