Strike on North Korea - Page 52

Oberon · 10-17-17, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delgard

And they are just now talking about it? But, The Diplomat writes quality as compared to quickness.

Yeah, there's been suspicions for a while, but at least they've taken the time to put it together. Will be interesting when we get some pics of the new boat, I doubt they'll put the missiles in the sail if they're hoping to get four of them in there, IIRC most sail launched boomers didn't have more than three in there. So either they'll have quite a long conning tower, or they're going to stick the things in a missile compartment in the hull...in which case will they go for a hump based design like the Delta and Type 094, or a flatter surface like an Ohio or Triomphant.

I'm also interested in how they're going to deploy these new subs, since they're not exactly going to be the most stealthy things around, so you can pretty much guarantee that each SSB will get an ROK tail as soon as it leaves port, probably a USN one too for that matter, maybe even a JMSDF one, and any of those tails will blow it out of the water as soon as it even looks funny at South Korea. So the plan to deploy it south of the THAAD and then destroy the THAAD system by attacking from its blindspot is a bit of a suicide mission. If I were KJU I'd be looking into creating a bastion for them somewhere in the western sea...but this then brings up another question. What would they be used for? Since the usual idea of an at sea deterrent is to have either a second strike capability (in the case of the US) or a strike capability which cannot easily be destroyed (in the case of the UK) so either the DPRK is going to use the SSBs as a back-up in case his land based forces get taken out, or he's got them as a second strike capability along side his first strike capability in his land based forces...in which case, a second strike against who? By the time the dust has settled after the first exchange the ROK will be wrecked, Japan badly damaged and the damage more spread out the further away from the DPRK you get...but the Pukguksong SLBM cannot reach the US from the DPRK, and the Gorae would be committing suicide if it tried to approach the US west coast...so who would that second strike ability be used against? Any US invasion force mustering points perhaps? Or perhaps the size of the new Gorae is to future-proof it for the next generation of Puksuksong missiles which might have increased range.

Ideally, we know that the goal of the DPRK would be to have SLBMs equivalent to the Russian R-39, so they can put their SSBs into a bastion and have the ability to hit the US from there.

I think they'll be able to do it, and sooner than we'd expect, it took the PRC about 20-30 years to go from the JL-1 to the JL-2, which has a longer range than the R-39, I give the DPRK 10 years maximum before they have the missile...maybe another five for the submarine, another ten if they decide to make it an SSBN rather than SSB.

Delgard · 10-17-17, 08:32 PM

I doubt that it would make it past the 12 mile limit. There are just to many observers. To build a "sufficient" boat would take money and a fair bit of time.

A sub can't go in a cave and come out somewhere else. Just too many observers.

A mobile TEL has a much better chance of survivability, and cheaper.

vienna · 10-17-17, 11:55 PM

The estimates and evaluations of if and when NK, or any other nation, may be skewed by the person or persons doing the evaluation and the extent of their knowledge of attendant technologies. If the 'evaluator' isn't fully up on the tech, they may underestimate and/or misread a situation. This may be what has happened with NK. It seems to happen, over and over again, that the estimates and evaluations of NK capabilities have fallen short. Given the extremely rapid progression of tech and the increased means of its dissemination, licit and illicit, with NK it may be better to not rely on the old evaluations of "Well, they're just another poor, backward country", and begin to deal with the situation on the basis NK may very well be much farther along than the "experts" care to admit...

<O>

Platapus · 10-18-17, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delgard

A mobile TEL has a much better chance of survivability, and cheaper.

And with the terrain, easier to hide and harder to kill

Delgard · 10-19-17, 07:20 AM

Just noted this morning from Foreign Policy magazine.

U.S. warships on alert. After a North Korean missile test in mid-September, a U.S. warship patrolling the Sea of Japan received a warning order, or WARNO, to be prepared to fire Tomahawk missiles at North Korean targets, a military source toldFP’s Jenna McLaughlin, Dan De Luce and Elias Groll.

“It’s not unheard of to do that,” a former senior defense official said. “But I would say it is a fairly significant indicator that the possibility of using Tomahawks is rising.”

More from FP: “If North Korea launched missiles at Guam, Japan, or South Korea, ‘you would certainly want your Tomahawks ready in a fast-moving scenario like that should the president or secretary of defense make the judgement to respond with an offensive strike,’ said the former senior official, who is familiar with Pentagon contingency planning.”

Just for SA...

Oberon · 10-19-17, 09:04 AM

Senior Hill Republicans think a 'limited strike' is coming:

https://twitter.com/Dalzell60/status/920997151924252672

Mr Quatro · 10-19-17, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

Senior Hill Republicans think a 'limited strike' is coming:

You didn't say it ... you just linked it, but no way will a limited strike work to find out what NK would do. All hell would break loose before Kim Jong-un would loose face and let a limited strike violate his country.

Oberon · 10-19-17, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

You didn't say it ... you just linked it, but no way will a limited strike work to find out what NK would do. All hell would break loose before Kim Jong-un would loose face and let a limited strike violate his country.

I agree.

Let's hope that it's just a false rumour going round.

vienna · 10-19-17, 09:18 AM

I also hope its not true...

...however, Trump does need something to distract from his other fails...

<O>

Oberon · 10-19-17, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vienna

Trump does need something to distract from his other fails...

Dread to think what's going to happen when Mueller finishes...

Mr Quatro · 10-19-17, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vienna

I also hope its not true...

...however, Trump does need something to distract from his other fails...

<O>

John Candy's last movie Canadian Bacon comes to mind

Quote:

The U.S. President, low in the opinion polls, gets talked into raising his popularity by trying to start a cold war against Canada.

Quote:

The US economy is in a rut, and so is the president's approval rating. What we need is a good war, but the Russians aren't interested. Hey -- how about that big polite country to the north?

Rockstar · 10-19-17, 11:45 AM

As ol' George once said: "The only use for an atomic bomb is to keep somebody else from using one"

I suspect any limited strike by the U.S. would be conventional in nature. If as some say Fatboy is so mentally unstable and self absorbed he wouldn't hesitate to use nuclear weapons for his own selfish suicidal desires. Then it would be best to remove such a man from the world stage immediately. Because the future is darker than the present idea of removing fatboy from power today.

mapuc · 10-19-17, 12:28 PM

So far I have thought that it would be KJU who would fire the first bullet. Now by reading the lastest comments and links I start to get a second thought about this.

If USA strikes first I'm 99.99 % sure it will be with conventional type of weapons. If KJU decide to revenge this, which I'm very sure of he will.

Then the questions will be:

1. Where will he strike first ?
2. When will he make this strike ?
3. What kind of weapon will he use ?

If KJU decide to use nukes another question comes into my mind

What will USA response be ?
Will they response with Nukes ?
Will they increase their bombing campaign against NK using both smart and dumb bombs ?

Markus

Onkel Neal · 10-19-17, 01:08 PM

Things should've never gotten to this point.

Delgard · 10-19-17, 01:33 PM

I have only heard of one nuclear processing facility. But, to stop the fuel is to stop further production from this point. That does not eliminate, but it meets international acceptance...I believe.

To chase down produced warheads is futile. The are most likely moving at this moment.

I just heard G. W. Bush and his senior advisors talking in support of democratic ideals.

Oh, BTW, the economy is cruising.

10-17-17, 11:55 PM	#768
vienna Navy Seal Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Anywhere but the here & now... Posts: 7,495 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	The estimates and evaluations of if and when NK, or any other nation, may be skewed by the person or persons doing the evaluation and the extent of their knowledge of attendant technologies. If the 'evaluator' isn't fully up on the tech, they may underestimate and/or misread a situation. This may be what has happened with NK. It seems to happen, over and over again, that the estimates and evaluations of NK capabilities have fallen short. Given the extremely rapid progression of tech and the increased means of its dissemination, licit and illicit, with NK it may be better to not rely on the old evaluations of "Well, they're just another poor, backward country", and begin to deal with the situation on the basis NK may very well be much farther along than the "experts" care to admit... <O> __________________ __________________________________________________ __

10-19-17, 09:18 AM	#774
vienna Navy Seal Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Anywhere but the here & now... Posts: 7,495 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	I also hope its not true... ...however, Trump does need something to distract from his other fails... <O> __________________ __________________________________________________ __

10-19-17, 11:45 AM	#777
Rockstar Rear Admiral Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Zendia Bar & Grill Posts: 11,811 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	As ol' George once said: "The only use for an atomic bomb is to keep somebody else from using one" I suspect any limited strike by the U.S. would be conventional in nature. If as some say Fatboy is so mentally unstable and self absorbed he wouldn't hesitate to use nuclear weapons for his own selfish suicidal desires. Then it would be best to remove such a man from the world stage immediately. Because the future is darker than the present idea of removing fatboy from power today. __________________ Guardian of the honey and nuts Let's assume I'm right, it'll save time.

10-19-17, 01:08 PM	#779
Onkel Neal Born to Run Silent Join Date: Jan 1997 Location: Cougar Trap, Texas Posts: 21,283 Downloads: 534 Uploads: 224	Things should've never gotten to this point. __________________ SUBSIM - 26 Years on the Web

10-17-17, 08:32 PM	#767
Delgard Skipper Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: AZ & DC Posts: 487 Downloads: 48 Uploads: 0	I doubt that it would make it past the 12 mile limit. There are just to many observers. To build a "sufficient" boat would take money and a fair bit of time. A sub can't go in a cave and come out somewhere else. Just too many observers. A mobile TEL has a much better chance of survivability, and cheaper.

10-19-17, 07:20 AM	#770
Delgard Skipper Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: AZ & DC Posts: 487 Downloads: 48 Uploads: 0	Just noted this morning from Foreign Policy magazine. U.S. warships on alert. After a North Korean missile test in mid-September, a U.S. warship patrolling the Sea of Japan received a warning order, or WARNO, to be prepared to fire Tomahawk missiles at North Korean targets, a military source toldFP’s Jenna McLaughlin, Dan De Luce and Elias Groll. “It’s not unheard of to do that,” a former senior defense official said. “But I would say it is a fairly significant indicator that the possibility of using Tomahawks is rising.” More from FP: “If North Korea launched missiles at Guam, Japan, or South Korea, ‘you would certainly want your Tomahawks ready in a fast-moving scenario like that should the president or secretary of defense make the judgement to respond with an offensive strike,’ said the former senior official, who is familiar with Pentagon contingency planning.” Just for SA...

10-19-17, 09:04 AM	#771
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	Senior Hill Republicans think a 'limited strike' is coming: https://twitter.com/Dalzell60/status/920997151924252672

10-19-17, 12:28 PM	#778
mapuc Fleet Admiral Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Denmark Posts: 17,830 Downloads: 37 Uploads: 0	So far I have thought that it would be KJU who would fire the first bullet. Now by reading the lastest comments and links I start to get a second thought about this. If USA strikes first I'm 99.99 % sure it will be with conventional type of weapons. If KJU decide to revenge this, which I'm very sure of he will. Then the questions will be: 1. Where will he strike first ? 2. When will he make this strike ? 3. What kind of weapon will he use ? If KJU decide to use nukes another question comes into my mind What will USA response be ? Will they response with Nukes ? Will they increase their bombing campaign against NK using both smart and dumb bombs ? Markus

10-19-17, 01:33 PM	#780
Delgard Skipper Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: AZ & DC Posts: 487 Downloads: 48 Uploads: 0	I have only heard of one nuclear processing facility. But, to stop the fuel is to stop further production from this point. That does not eliminate, but it meets international acceptance...I believe. To chase down produced warheads is futile. The are most likely moving at this moment. I just heard G. W. Bush and his senior advisors talking in support of democratic ideals. Oh, BTW, the economy is cruising.