South Korean ship fires on a ship

[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?

[CaptainHaplo]

Honestly - I would have to say that even if we were hit on the continent by a hiroshima sized nuke (and its doubtful that NK even has something that big) - I doubt a nuke would be used in return.

Whether I agree with that policy or not isn't the question. Current doctrine just does not go "tit for tat" with nukes - and that is good as its rather irresponsible.

[Oberon]

You lob a nuke at the DPRK and China will go ape****, whether the DPRK used one first or not. Chances are, if the DPRK DID use a nuke obviously then it would isolate itself immediately in the international community (well...more than it already is) and chances are that Beijing would co-operate in a limited sense in the removal of Kim Jong-il or whoever is in charge at the moment, probably in return for a return to the status quo with a Chinese puppet in charge of the DPRK. Having the Chinese on side would go a long way to bringing any conflict to a swift close with minimal allied casualties.
I suspect, given the closeness between Tehran and Pyongyang, that Iran will act up if the DPRK does, to try and stretch the US's response between the two countries plus Afghanistan.

[Jimbuna]

Then they'd simply take both countries out....if that was the response it warranted.

personally I can see China taking control of NK before any escalation toward a possible worldwide nuclear exchange.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

Then they'd simply take both countries out....if that was the response it warranted.

personally I can see China taking control of NK before any escalation toward a possible worldwide nuclear exchange.

Tricky job, unless you mean by direct nuclear strike Jim, and even then I suspect that all it would do would be kill the civilians, all the brass would be underground or hidden somewhere. To attack and fight a ground war in Korea and Iran at the same time would require more resources than the US currently has. Heck, fighting a ground war in Iran alone would be a complete mess.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Tricky job, unless you mean by direct nuclear strike Jim, and even then I suspect that all it would do would be kill the civilians, all the brass would be underground or hidden somewhere. To attack and fight a ground war in Korea and Iran at the same time would require more resources than the US currently has. Heck, fighting a ground war in Iran alone would be a complete mess.

I did indeed mean 'by direct nuclear strike'

[Happy Times]

Usually every reporter and analyst about the Korean peninsula seems to have an different opinion like we do.
If this wasnt so serious this would be a fun guessing game.

Some links i found that might interest you guys, very mixed information as usual.

New Concerns About North Korea


North Korea Says No Chaos After Currency Reform


North Korea: the drumbeats of war
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/s...-korea-nuclear

Continued Chinese Financial Support of N. Korea Questioned
http://www1.voanews.com/english/news...-89591277.html

China Will Give Kim Jong Il $10 Billion, Violating the Spirit and Letter of U.N. Security Council Resolutions It Voted For
http://www.freekorea.us/2010/02/16/c...-it-voted-for/

[Oberon]

Aye, thanks for the links HT, I'll have a butchers at them tomorrow.
It is a big guessing game though, even some of the North Korean high command probably doesn't know what's going on. Is the 'Dear Leader' still alive? Or is the DPRK now being run by a junta of military generals?
Would the DPRK dare to cross the DMZ and risk war? Or is it trying to brinkmanship itself into a new set of concessions?
One thing is for certain, when this is officially announced as a torpedo attack by the North, which it'll have to be confirmed as either Chinese or DPRK attack (and I can't see the PLAN having anything to do with it), then there's going to be some serious tension between the two Koreas. The South Korean public is already crying out for vengeance, and I don't think tighter trade restrictions is going to do it for them...

[Oberon]

South Korea vows to retaliate:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/8656852.stm

They've just got to get a watertight (pardon the expression) case on whodunnit.

[raymond6751]

The Korean War started in 1950 and never really ended with a peace treaty.

N. Korea is one nation to be afraid of because they just don't care about the rest of the world.