Page 3 of 6

RE: NKorea Situations

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 1:29 am
by oldman45
ORIGINAL: DivePac88

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I heard a talking head opine that the NK's are afraid they'll go the way of Iraq, and that's why they're beating the drums this loudly.

You hit the nail on the head there T; This new leader thinks he's fighting for the life of his regime, and he is probably correct. No country can employ the resources of their country at the level of military capacity, for an extended period of time that NK is. He has to use his forces now he thinks, ether to pressure or in the extreme with a limited-war to force concessions from the west.

I hope your not right.

RE: NKorea Situations

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:08 am
by CaptBeefheart
This is what North Korea does. They ratchet up the rhetoric until we give them concessions. They are not crazy, they are actually pretty good at playing us like a violin. Someone said Seoul is indefensible. Not by a longshot. The Nork's equipment is old and obsolete. I even read they only have 27 arty tubes that can actually reach downtown Seoul. Unless they used chemical weapons, there would not be a mass slaughter of civilians. The Nork soldiers would stop at the first convenience store across the DMZ and stock up on ramyeon (i.e. ramen). The South's army completely outclasses the northern one.

Here's some good analysis from a friend of mine who is about the only talking head worth listening to about North Korea: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3727471.htm

Cheers,
CC

RE: NKorea Situations

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:33 am
by aspqrz02
The "long range" missiles they have have a range of around 4000 klicks.

With a 650 kilo payload.

Does anyone seriously believe that the DPRK has managed to -

a) build a viable atomic bomb

(all the tests have been underground, and not all have released nuclear radiation ... underground "nuclear" tests are generally differentiated from natural earthquakes only by their timing ... they tend to be on the hour ... all militaries are anal like that [;)])

I'd guess that there is at least a chance that it's all a bluff done with lots of conventional explosives and some nuclear waste from their decomissioned reactors. Probably a fairly good chance.

b) build a nuclear bomb that masses 650 kilos or less.

(This took the US quite a while back in the 1940's. The first bombs were in excess of 2000 kilos. Even though, theoretically, the DPRK have access to [modernish] technologies, I doubt they have the practical experience needed to turn that into smaller bombs, under the 650 kilo limit.)

c) build a missile with a CEP (Circular Error Probable ... the ring around the nominal aiming point inside which there is a 50% chance of the missile hitting) of less than several klicks, if not several tens of klicks over longer ranges.

(Their missiles are basically all modified SCUDs or FROGs or similar, and the base missiles were hardly known for their accuracy ... and NK precision engineering is almost certainly an oxymoron)

It is a good chance that the best they could do would be to lob a missile or two in the general direction of US bases in Japan, or at Guam ... and with dirty warheads of nuclear waste with HE bursting charge.

Still, "good chance" is not 100% certain, and I'd hesitate to take risks based on it if I were in charge. Of course, there's a reasonable chance that the US is, as has been its practise with Iraq and the Iraqi WMDs, "gilding the lily" somewhat, and if I had access to the high level intelligence they do, maybe I could be more assured.

Phil

RE: NKorea Situations

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 7:54 am
by decaro
ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

This is what North Korea does. They ratchet up the rhetoric until we give them concessions. They are not crazy, they are actually pretty good at playing us like a violin. Someone said Seoul is indefensible. Not by a longshot ...

During the Korean War, on what side of the Han River Defense Line was Seoul located?

ROK and US forces eventually withdrew all the way to Pusan at the end of the peninsula.

Twice!

RE: NKorea Situations

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 10:13 am
by tocaff
In all probability the SK & US troops would be falling back under heavy NK pressure until the SK reserves were fully operational and then things would firm up defensively. The air war would likely end up with the NK forces at the front being denied supplies to continue offensive operations and casualties on both sides would be very heavy. Then of course the SK and US forces would switch over to the offensive.

RE: NKorea Situations

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 4:13 pm
by Lokasenna
ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Nations do not have friends, they have interests.

And I think all in that region have vested interest to keep NK in bay.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

To be honest I think NK does not display anything greatly diverging from what they have been trying (successfully I might add)
for decades already.

They up the tension until it gets close to unbearable, mix threats with display of wounded pride and comndemnations of western acts of
aggression, and then return to the bargaining table, agreeing to slowly step down again in exchange for foreign aid. Kim Jong Un might even
be a bit more excentric than his father, but he learned the ropes under his leadership, and bargaining for foreign aid with nuclear weapons
was what his father did all the time. It works on two ways: keeping the Population from starving completely, and at the same time justifying
the nuclear arsenal.

Regarding China, I do not think one could simply say they want NK getting taught a lesson, or want to get rid of them as an ally.
The DPRK is a buffer zone against US troops, and it is a great buffer zone. Noone gets through there. The Chinese might be annoyed with NKs way
of dealing with foreign politics, but I do not think China believes this outweights the benefits. Losing NK, and China got US troops and a western
oriented ROK in their backyard. I think they still prefer crazy Kim.

This is mostly my perspective as well.

I'd add that China would hate an unstable DPRK, as there would be a predictable surge of refugees across their border. That would be an unmitigated disaster, so from China's perspective-status quo is the best option. The Chinese benefit from a 'stable' DPRK, as it keeps the refugees off their turf and is also a bulwark against the rest of the "West", including Japan and S. Korea. The Chinese couldn't give a rip about the DPRK's use of slave labor, its forced labor camps, political concentration camps (I use that term very specifically) and deified dictatorship. It serves their ends, so there you go. If the Chinese can keep the starving North Koreans on North Korean territory, it's better than having starving North Koreans on Chinese territory.

The DPRK is doing nothing more than making noise at the South and the rest of the world (including Japan and the US) in order to get some appeasing settlement. If I had a buck for every time they have pledged "war" or saber rattled in the last 20 years, I'd be wealthy. Let 'em make noise.

By the way, I think we should enact a lend/lease with the South Koreans. We should lend them the arsenal of democracy to fend off aggression from regional neighbors. OK-it's not an original idea-but bear with me. If it so happens that they are victims of a nuclear attack from Pyongyang, then we should 'lend' them a fully equipped and loaded Ohio Class SSBN, complete with 24 Trident II SLBMs and the trained crew to show them how to use it in their defense. As part of the training, we temporarily turn over command positions to a South Korean Captain, XO and Weapons officer and let nature take its course. So, that's 4x24 W88 475 KT nominal yield MIRVs. That oughta just about cover every potato patch in North Korea. Assuming they had potatoes there.

Hey, if the DPRK wants to export its nuclear weapons technology and then use it in an offensive manner against its neighbors, why should we not beat 'em at their own game? Plus, WE didn't pull the trigger. It was the South Koreans that nuked 'em back.

Of course, it won't come to that. I just hope we have the stomach to roll our eyes, let 'em rant and carry on status quo. I'd like to think that we would just ignore them, but history suggests that South Korea is an easy mark.



The above is my thinking also. I remember reading several years ago about NK refugee camps just over the border in China, and how China didn't really know what to do about it but they didn't like it at all. They didn't want to invest the resources to help these people who aren't theirs, but given the flow of information these days, they couldn't just ignore them/turn them back/"send them to Siberia" either.

I think China has a strong interest in keeping NK just as it is now and has been for decades, and so that's probably how things will remain. There's always a chance Kim could always just fly off the handle (or any other leader, for that matter), but China's power will probably keep NK just barely under control.

ORIGINAL: DivePac88

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I heard a talking head opine that the NK's are afraid they'll go the way of Iraq, and that's why they're beating the drums this loudly.

You hit the nail on the head there T; This new leader thinks he's fighting for the life of his regime, and he is probably correct. No country can employ the resources of their country at the level of military capacity, for an extended period of time that NK is. He has to use his forces now he thinks, ether to pressure or in the extreme with a limited-war to force concessions from the west.

Agree also, to an extent.

RE: NKorea Situations

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:05 pm
by Rising-Sun
Well something suppose to happen on the 10th, so that is three days from now. Let hope all this is just BS, if not then it will be end of NK for good.

RE: NKorea Situations

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 7:52 pm
by decaro
ORIGINAL: tocaff

In all probability the SK & US troops would be falling back under heavy NK pressure until the SK reserves were fully operational and then things would firm up defensively. The air war would likely end up with the NK forces at the front being denied supplies to continue offensive operations and casualties on both sides would be very heavy ...

When my unit left Korea after an annual exercise more than a decade ago, the North shot a Long Dong missile towards Okinawa, the island where any refugees would have been evacuated in case a conflict broke out on the peninsula.

Today, the North has better missles that can probably be armed with chemical warheads, war heads which could render entire ports unusable and cause enormous civilian casualties depite the claim that there's an NBC suit for everyone in the RoK.

In short, the next armed conflict in Korea won't be a replay of the 1950's; IMO, the missles the North is rapidly developing are a game changer, and should Kimmy boy get his fat fingers on a nuclear device and develop a delivery system, well ...

RE: NKorea Situations

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:02 pm
by DuckofTindalos
That's assuming he's insane, and doesn't (to quote Dennis Miller) love his job and wants to keep it, along with his ass and arteries.

Saddam had gas during GW1, and he didn't use it, even though he had plenty of chances.

RE: NKorea Situations

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:31 pm
by AW1Steve
ORIGINAL: Terminus

That's assuming he's insane, and doesn't (to quote Dennis Miller) love his job and wants to keep it, along with his ass and arteries.

Saddam had gas during GW1, and he didn't use it, even though he had plenty of chances.


Deleted

RE: NKorea Situations

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:33 pm
by DuckofTindalos
Exactly. You don't think the NK's know that?

RE: NKorea Situations

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 11:29 pm
by AW1Steve
ORIGINAL: Terminus

Exactly. You don't think the NK's know that?


Deleted

RE: NKorea Situations

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 11:42 pm
by topeverest
If any head of state wanted to declare war and occupy a property / country, only a fool would project such action with protracted rhetoric as the inferior military power, giving the enemy time to react. NK doesnt have deep pocket allies to fight any type of protracted conventional effort (which would allow them to hold onto gains) using any mix of tactics and weapons systems they may have.

The critical question in all the saber rattling is their purpose. There are institutions in very private places who know much more than the general public. Of course the lessons of the past and transcending conflicts like the Cuban Missile Crisis weigh heavily on on the minds of the various decision makers. Where this will go is uncertain, but general armed conflict is far less likely than most other outcomes.

I prefer to trust those whose lives are dedicated to protecting us armchair admirals. I'll keep fighting my own little war in the pacific!

RE: NKorea Situations

Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:30 am
by Grfin Zeppelin
I found this one really interesting. Part 2 is also there.

It is from the North Korea studies institute in the US

Introducing North Korea

RE: NKorea Situations

Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:45 am
by ChezDaJez
ORIGINAL: DivePac88

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I heard a talking head opine that the NK's are afraid they'll go the way of Iraq, and that's why they're beating the drums this loudly.

You hit the nail on the head there T; This new leader thinks he's fighting for the life of his regime, and he is probably correct. No country can employ the resources of their country at the level of military capacity, for an extended period of time that NK is. He has to use his forces now he thinks, ether to pressure or in the extreme with a limited-war to force concessions from the west.


Why does this sound so much like 1941 all over again?

I don't believe he has the missile capability to hit reliably anywhere much further than South Korea and Japan. And I'm not sure he has the ability to put one atop a missile and actually have both the missile and warhead work. Hitting near the target is another matter entirely.

However, it doesn't take much engineering to manufacture a droppable nuclear bomb. And he has the capability of loading it on an attack bomber and sending it against US bases in Japan. The guy is crazy, crazy as in desparate to stave off any coups by being bellicose. He has to show the people that only he can protect them and that he has true power over the generals.

Having said all that, he hasn't begun mobilizing hardly any of conventional forces. If he starts doing that then the risk of war becomes astronomical as he will not be able to stand down his army without appearing unless the ROK, Japan and the US granted substantial concessions.

Chez

RE: NKorea Situations

Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 3:40 am
by bigred
this report indicates a link w/ russia working for a settlement in syria and stirring trouble in NK.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2Kt_qByNNU

RE: NKorea Situations

Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 7:42 am
by DuckofTindalos
You want to put a nuke on an Il-28 and send it into a heavily-patrolled airspace. Yeah, good luck with that...

RE: NKorea Situations

Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 8:10 am
by Rising-Sun
ORIGINAL: Terminus

You want to put a nuke on an Il-28 and send it into a heavily-patrolled airspace. Yeah, good luck with that...

Lol, yeah you wont stand a chance and they do have tons of surface to air missiles all over NKorea.

RE: NKorea Situations

Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 8:22 am
by DuckofTindalos
I'm responding to a previous post of somebody speculating about the NKs putting a bomb on an attack bomber and sending it towards a US/SK/Japanese target.

This is rhetoric. Like the Iranians; they've been screaming about removing Israel from the map for decades and it hasn't happened yet.

RE: NKorea Situations

Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 8:25 am
by decaro
ORIGINAL: Terminus

That's assuming he's insane, and doesn't (to quote Dennis Miller) love his job and wants to keep it, along with his ass and arteries.

Saddam had gas during GW1, and he didn't use it, even though he had plenty of chances.

Saddam actually gave permission to use it, but his subordinates in the field, many of whom were about to surrender, didn't think it was a good idea idea to "slime" their soon-to-be captors.