South Korean ship fires on a ship

[Castout]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Not as many as you might think.

Their ballistic mobile launchers could prove lethal to population centers in the South. . . .with every one having a probability that it might carry nuclear warhead.

[CaptainHaplo]

The danger isn't nukes - there is still some question as to whether the "nuke" NK has is really even a nuke at all given the dispersal of radiation and strength. However, their chem and bio side is a real danger to the civilian population however.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Castout

Their ballistic mobile launchers could prove lethal to population centers in the South. . . .with every one having a probability that it might carry nuclear warhead.

Which is why the ROK purchased 48 PAC-2 launchers and the US keeps two Brigades of Patriots in Korea.

[TLAM Strike]

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/...042601408.html

According to this from the SUBSIM main page the two submarines that left base on the day of the attack were of the North Korean "Shark" class (AKA Sang O class). This sub class carries two torpedo tubes with 2 reloads.



This is the larger of the two main classes of North Korea midget submarines. Here is the Database entry I wrote for them in LWAMI 3.10:

SANG-O CLASS MIDGET SUBMARINE

D: 256 tons surf./277 tons sub.
S: 7 kts surf./9 kts sub.
Dim: 35X3.6x6 m
Maximum Depth: 152M

ARMAMENT: 2 533mm torpedo tubes. 2-4 torpedoes or 8 mines.


ELECTRONICS:
Radar: Furuno I Band Search Radar
Sonar: Cylindrical array (Copy of 1950's vintage Soviet sonar)
EW: VHF wip antenna.

Crew: 25 incl. Commandos.

Machinery: 1 Diesel, 1 Electric motor. 1 5 blade propeller.

[joegrundman]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Which is why the ROK purchased 48 PAC-2 launchers and the US keeps two Brigades of Patriots in Korea.

and you think teh usa and sk are willing to bet a few ten thousand lives on the ability of these defenses to catch them all?

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

and you think teh usa and sk are willing to bet a few ten thousand lives on the ability of these defenses to catch them all?

It only needs to catch the one with the nuke on it. While you've have probably read about mobile nuclear detectors at ports in the US to detect the emissions of neutron or gamma rays from the nuclear material in a warhead it is feasible that an interceptor missile could be equipped with a radiation detecting seeker to differentiate between a nuclear warhead, additional conventional warheads and decoys.

Also the North has to figure that with ground and sea based interceptors there would be a high attrition rate for the IRBMs meaning that if they chose to fire a nuclear missile as part of a strike there is a possibility that is would be shot down, not 100% but enough that the DPRK's few warheads might not reach their targets.

Its a pycological move much like in Desert Storm when the US publicized the [fictional] success of the Patriot.

[Castout]

The best defense is attack but that would risk retaliatory capital bombardment by the North which in return would necessitate equal bombardment of the North's capital(not that they have much).

The thing is the Cheonan may be sunk by the North but the South's population is not at risk with the North raising the concern whether military retaliatory action would be worth the risk of putting the entire South's population into a war situation.

It would be different had the attack in the first place targeted civilian population or infrastructure. That would probably justify an attack on the North immediately.

So the South is facing a dilemma that if they responded too soft the North and their own population would think the government as being too weak both not advantageous for the return of the North's nuclear talk while at the other spectrum if the South responded too hard they would risk Seoul bombardment which would be putting many many more South population into catastrophe.

So it's best to wait for Kim Jong Il regime to launch a couple of his big rockets over into South Korea before launching an all out attack on the North. If that happened I believe the South would have no choice but to attack the source of their threats in North Korea.

[TLAM Strike]

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/...043000459.html

As I suggested a while back, experts now think it was a PRC manufactured Yu-3 torpedo that sank Chenon. That narrows it down to the DPRK or the PRC as they are the only countries with ships armed with this make of torpedo that could have been operating in the region.



Specs:

• Diameter: 533 mm
• Length: 7.8 meter
• Weight: 1.34 ton (1.2 ton for the training version)
• Warhead: 205 kg
• Guidance: active/passive acoustic homing
• Propulsion: electrical, silver-zinc battery
• Range: 13 km
• Speed: 35 kt
• Depth: up to 400 meters

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

It only needs to catch the one with the nuke on it. While you've have probably read about mobile nuclear detectors at ports in the US to detect the emissions of neutron or gamma rays from the nuclear material in a warhead it is feasible that an interceptor missile could be equipped with a radiation detecting seeker to differentiate between a nuclear warhead, additional conventional warheads and decoys.

Also the North has to figure that with ground and sea based interceptors there would be a high attrition rate for the IRBMs meaning that if they chose to fire a nuclear missile as part of a strike there is a possibility that is would be shot down, not 100% but enough that the DPRK's few warheads might not reach their targets.

Its a psychological move much like in Desert Storm when the US publicized the [fictional] success of the Patriot.

The North is becoming unstable within and the leaders are desperate to get something going for them.

They probably want a peace agreement that gives them compensations and promises of trade and investment.

The other option could be a surprise attack, to invade some important enough locations in the South, to get more bargaining chips.

Now they really could believe these as viable options, not understanding how unrealistic they are.

I understand the South and US want to avoid war and hope for the peaceful collapse, but that seems to be the most unlikely scenario.

If there is a conflict the North will loose off course, but the WMDs are a big question.

If North can deliver a nuke, chemical or biological warheads in the South or Japan killing thousands of civilians, what is the US response going to be?


If the US doesnt retaliate, South, Japan (that would be their third time hit and i wouldnt blame them) and every other country nuclear capable will see the bluff and get their own.

This scenario is what the South and US dont want but the actions they are not taking drive the events down exactly that path.

[CaptainHaplo]

Even if the North used WMD, the US response would not do so.

The reason here is that WMD policy for the US - for decades (and Obama has upheld this) is that we will use our weapons ONLY in defense (or MAD). Even with a WMD strike, conventional arms are sufficient to stop a Northern invasion. An attack such as you describe - targetting Japan for example, would be seen more as a terrorist act than a military action - because the North has no ability to invade Japan with boots on the ground. A move against the south, while being deadly, and followed up by military invasion from the the north, would still see the northern advance halted and then pushed back with conventional arms. NK simply lacks the military power to force a WMD response, regardless of whether it uses its own WMD's or not.

Simply put, when conventional weapons can do the job, you do not escalate the conflict by using (in the case of the US)) nukes.

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Even if the North used WMD, the US response would not do so.

The reason here is that WMD policy for the US - for decades (and Obama has upheld this) is that we will use our weapons ONLY in defense (or MAD). Even with a WMD strike, conventional arms are sufficient to stop a Northern invasion. An attack such as you describe - targetting Japan for example, would be seen more as a terrorist act than a military action - because the North has no ability to invade Japan with boots on the ground. A move against the south, while being deadly, and followed up by military invasion from the the north, would still see the northern advance halted and then pushed back with conventional arms. NK simply lacks the military power to force a WMD response, regardless of whether it uses its own WMD's or not.

Simply put, when conventional weapons can do the job, you do not escalate the conflict by using (in the case of the US)) nukes.

So if NK would attack US with a Hiroshima strength nuke you wouldnt strike back with nukes because you can beat them conventionally?

Or is there different policies for allies under US nuclear umbrella and US itself?

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by Castout

Their ballistic mobile launchers could prove lethal to population centers in the South. . . .with every one having a probability that it might carry nuclear warhead.

That is if North Korea has any warheads that could be fitted into one of the ballistic missiles. It's one thing to detonate a nuke that's sitting on the ground, it's quite another to fit it into a SRBM.

[Oberon]

A nuke would be one way to blast a gap through the DMZ defences though...particularly if you're not bothered about the lives of the soldiers marching through the fallout afterwards...

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Oberon

A nuke would be one way to blast a gap through the DMZ defences though...particularly if you're not bothered about the lives of the soldiers marching through the fallout afterwards...

...which we can be reasonable certain the NK's aren't...

[CaptainHaplo]

Its not just the DMZ. The reality is that NK - even if you removed the entire defensive line the South has - would still lose a war with the South. Sure, they would make some serious headway, but they would still end up losing. When it all was said and done, the North lacks a credible ability to wage a protracted conflict without help - and it WOULD be a protracted conflict because the South would not be on its own.