North Korean Nukes?

[pwrfrk]

What amazes me is how people are so concerned about DPRK's ICBMs when they totally miss something more threatening- submarines.  North Korea has at least 2.  A solid fueled rocket would suffice at delivering a nuke within a minute or two, and there is nothing we could do to stop it.

So exactly how good is our anti-sub defenses?

[anatess2]

6 hours ago, pwrfrk said:

What amazes me is how people are so concerned about DPRK's ICBMs when they totally miss something more threatening- submarines.  North Korea has at least 2.  A solid fueled rocket would suffice at delivering a nuke within a minute or two, and there is nothing we could do to stop it.

So exactly how good is our anti-sub defenses?

Uhm... that's silly.  Surface to air missiles are more threatening than sea to air.  You can shoot down a missile underwater  or over water with a lot less damage than shooting it off the air.

In any case, Japanese maritime defenses in the Sea of Japan is solid.  Chinese maritime defenses  in the Yellow sea is also solid.  Both countries are currently solidly allied with the US who also has naval defenses in the region.   Yes yes, the Philippines have been making noise about Chinese submarine base encroachment into Philippine territory but so far the Philippines is dealing with that quietly with ASEAN+US so as not to rock the boat.  And South Korea's maritime defenses are no joke either.  They've been doing drills off both coasts with the US and Chinese/Japanese as well.  You can't move a submarine off the coast of DPRK without it getting checked.

The key to all this is the alliance.  China and Russia needs to be on the US side.  If one of them breaks off (especially with this Russian collusion madness in the US), it makes things a whole lot more difficult.

If you haven't noticed, ballistic tests in DPRK have stopped.  For now.  China is sitting heavy on Kim.  They need US-China Trade relations to not get Trumped.  And Trump's attitude to the DPRK is making China stop wagging the DPRK tail on that dog.  Let's see how long it lasts.

Edited October 25, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

7 hours ago, pwrfrk said:

What amazes me is how people are so concerned about DPRK's ICBMs when they totally miss something more threatening- submarines.  North Korea has at least 2.  A solid fueled rocket would suffice at delivering a nuke within a minute or two, and there is nothing we could do to stop it.

So exactly how good is our anti-sub defenses?

You know that guy online who talks about how tough he is and how many fights he's been in and how he's won them all and he's so tough and strong and he's got 47 black belts in every single martial art out there etc, etc etc? In reality he's a scared little baby who wets himself if he hears a loud noise. 

North Korea. 

Edited October 25, 2017 by MormonGator

[Guest]

I read that North Korea has had stores of stuff like smallpox and chemical weapons for years and have not used them.

It would probably be easier to stage a smallpox attack on South Korea or even the US than a nuclear ICBM attack.

This shows that deterrence works with North Korea, that they are not actually going to do more than just bluster unless they are actually invaded.

That said, to prevent Kim from getting any ideas about invading South Korea, I would recommend South Korea arms itself with short-range nukes, so deterrence can be complete.  If South Korea and Japan were to arm themselves with nukes, the US could almost just withdraw from the region and let South Korea and Japan do the heavy lifting of containing the threat of North Korea.

Edited October 25, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[JohnsonJones]

12 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

I read that North Korea has had stores of stuff like smallpox and chemical weapons for years and have not used them.

It would probably be easier to stage a smallpox attack on South Korea or even the US than a nuclear ICBM attack.

This shows that deterrence works with North Korea, that they are not actually going to do more than just bluster unless they are actually invaded.

That said, to prevent Kim from getting any ideas about invading South Korea, I would recommend South Korea arms itself with short-range nukes, so deterrence can be complete.  If South Korea and Japan were to arm themselves with nukes, the US could almost just withdraw from the region and let South Korea and Japan do the heavy lifting of containing the threat of North Korea.

Why would Japan ever nuke N. Korea.  I can't see Japan doing that.

1. Japan LOATHES nukes.  For some reason, hearkening back to the end of WWII, Japan has had a very hardline anti-nuclear stance among it's population.  It shouldn't be any surprise to anyone.

2. Even if you get past that...the high altitude winds blow from Korea to North Japan typically.  If they nuke N. Korea...Japan is going to get the fallout.  I don't think Japan is going to be jumping for joy about a nuclear fallout including themselves.  N. Korea can blast Japan and not worry as much (they'd probably get some fallout, but as the winds normally blow from their nation either to Japan's northern end, or if on the circular pattern, to the Eastern edge of China to Japan or South Korea...N. Korea doesn't have as much to worry about as Japan or S. Korea in that regards).

Fat chance in heck that Japan wants to nuke N. Korea in my opinion.   Unless all they want is S. Japan to be left standing, probably not the wisest idea to nuke N. Korea from Japan OR S. Korea.  That may also be the reason why we didn't originally nuke them in the first place 60 some odd years ago. 

That's why, I don't think Japan's going to be a fan of it (nuking N. Korea)...much less be arming themselves with nukes to hit N. Korea with.

 

PS: On the otherhand, I think the trade winds also blow the opposite direction off of South Japan (as opposed to North Japan), but they blow from S. Japan to S. Korea...which means if N. Korea nuked S. Japan...they'd get two for one in that they'd nuke Japan and portions of S. Korea (as opposed to N. Korea) would get the fallout.

Edited October 26, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[NightSG]

Why don't we have some black ops geek team that can go in and adjust all their missiles to say they're pointed at wherever, but actually launch at Russia?

Let Putin solve the problem for us.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

Why would Japan ever nuke N. Korea.  I can't see Japan doing that.

1. Japan LOATHES nukes.  For some reason, hearkening back to the end of WWII, Japan has had a very hardline anti-nuclear stance among it's population.  It shouldn't be any surprise to anyone.

2. Even if you get past that...the high altitude winds blow from Korea to North Japan typically.  If they nuke N. Korea...Japan is going to get the fallout.  I don't think Japan is going to be jumping for joy about a nuclear fallout including themselves.  N. Korea can blast Japan and not worry as much (they'd probably get some fallout, but as the winds normally blow from their nation either to Japan's northern end, or if on the circular pattern, to the Eastern edge of China to Japan or South Korea...N. Korea doesn't have as much to worry about as Japan or S. Korea in that regards).

Fat chance in heck that Japan wants to nuke N. Korea in my opinion.   Unless all they want is S. Japan to be left standing, probably not the wisest idea to nuke N. Korea from Japan OR S. Korea.  That may also be the reason why we didn't originally nuke them in the first place 60 some odd years ago. 

That's why, I don't think Japan's going to be a fan of it (nuking N. Korea)...much less be arming themselves with nukes to hit N. Korea with.

 

PS: On the otherhand, I think the trade winds also blow the opposite direction off of South Japan (as opposed to North Japan), but they blow from S. Japan to S. Korea...which means if N. Korea nuked S. Japan...they'd get two for one in that they'd nuke Japan and portions of S. Korea (as opposed to N. Korea) would get the fallout.

Your reasoning may very well describe Japan’s current outlook (though I suspect, without American security guarantees and with a nuclear North Korea and an expansionist nuclear China, they’d quit worrying and learn to love the bomb mighty quickly.)

I suspect it has less to do with historical American reluctance to nuke North Korea, though. Japan, I believe, is further from Pyongyang than the Utah “downwinders” were from the US nuclear test sites in Nevada; but the army didn’t shy away from detonating nukes there again and again and again.  No; I suspect our reluctance was more due to a combination of not wanting to exacerbate tensions with the Russkies, not wanting to invite retributions against South Korea, and the fact that—for all the talk of American aggression and imperialism—we Yanks actually find it rather unsporting to kill hundreds of thousands of people in one fell swoop in all but the most abjectly desperate circumstances.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[pwrfrk]

15 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Uhm... that's silly.  Surface to air missiles are more threatening than sea to air.  You can shoot down a missile underwater  or over water with a lot less damage than shooting it off the air.

In any case, Japanese maritime defenses in the Sea of Japan is solid.  Chinese maritime defenses  in the Yellow sea is also solid.  Both countries are currently solidly allied with the US who also has naval defenses in the region.   Yes yes, the Philippines have been making noise about Chinese submarine base encroachment into Philippine territory but so far the Philippines is dealing with that quietly with ASEAN+US so as not to rock the boat.  And South Korea's maritime defenses are no joke either.  They've been doing drills off both coasts with the US and Chinese/Japanese as well.  You can't move a submarine off the coast of DPRK without it getting checked.

 

You make it sound like they have their subs at base waiting to be launched on a mission.  Hmmm.  I'm betting they already were "out there". 

Also, Surface to air missiles are meaningless.  Surface to surface is better.  Of course you don't need any fancy electronics, just launch one with a nuke on board and call it the evening & split.  Sitting 50 miles off shore from San Diego or San Fran.  Even Midway is a good target.

[anatess2]

5 hours ago, pwrfrk said:

You make it sound like they have their subs at base waiting to be launched on a mission.  Hmmm.  I'm betting they already were "out there". 

Also, Surface to air missiles are meaningless.  Surface to surface is better.  Of course you don't need any fancy electronics, just launch one with a nuke on board and call it the evening & split.  Sitting 50 miles off shore from San Diego or San Fran.  Even Midway is a good target.

Okay, I misspoke.  I used the incorrect terminology.  I was using surface to air to mean land surface to differentiate it from sea surface.  I did not want to imply that it strikes aircraft but rather only referred to where it is launched from.  Yes, surface-to-air is used for missiles to strike targets in the air.  Surface-to-surface is terminology used to strike targets on land.

In any case, DPRK cannot launch subs out of Sinpo or anywhere else into international waters without getting checked.  They can't be "out there" without anybody knowing, especially as old and clunky as they are that even the just-as-old Philippine navy will be able to hear them  if they ever manage to clunk their way into the Philippine Sea.  Anyway, they tried to test their subs in Sinpo last April.  They got checked.

Edited October 26, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest]

9 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Why would Japan ever nuke N. Korea.  I can't see Japan doing that.

1. Japan LOATHES nukes.  For some reason, hearkening back to the end of WWII, Japan has had a very hardline anti-nuclear stance among it's population.  It shouldn't be any surprise to anyone.

2. Even if you get past that...the high altitude winds blow from Korea to North Japan typically.  If they nuke N. Korea...Japan is going to get the fallout.  I don't think Japan is going to be jumping for joy about a nuclear fallout including themselves.  N. Korea can blast Japan and not worry as much (they'd probably get some fallout, but as the winds normally blow from their nation either to Japan's northern end, or if on the circular pattern, to the Eastern edge of China to Japan or South Korea...N. Korea doesn't have as much to worry about as Japan or S. Korea in that regards).

Fat chance in heck that Japan wants to nuke N. Korea in my opinion.   Unless all they want is S. Japan to be left standing, probably not the wisest idea to nuke N. Korea from Japan OR S. Korea.  That may also be the reason why we didn't originally nuke them in the first place 60 some odd years ago. 

That's why, I don't think Japan's going to be a fan of it (nuking N. Korea)...much less be arming themselves with nukes to hit N. Korea with.

 

PS: On the otherhand, I think the trade winds also blow the opposite direction off of South Japan (as opposed to North Japan), but they blow from S. Japan to S. Korea...which means if N. Korea nuked S. Japan...they'd get two for one in that they'd nuke Japan and portions of S. Korea (as opposed to N. Korea) would get the fallout.

It is not about Japan wanting to nuke North Korea.

It is about the fact that, if Japan has nukes and could nuke North Korea, then North Korea might be better inclined to behave and not do stuff like fire missiles over Japanese airspace.  If Japan, South Korea, and the US all have nukes they can independently decide to use, this complicates North Korea's provocation calculus (they have to avoid crossing three red lines for three different countries rather than just the red line for the US, which currently controls the nukes and is far enough removed from the conflict that North Korea can get away with more) and may lead to less provocative behavior on the part of North Korea.

Edited October 26, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[Guest]

On 10/5/2017 at 3:33 PM, Vort said:

This appears not (or no longer) to be the case. From NPR, if you're inclined to believe them:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/03/548262043/here-are-the-facts-about-north-koreas-nuclear-test

That thing could just be a paper tiger prop.  What evidence is there?  No one has really investigated.  I'm having trouble believing that they would have the technology when more advanced countries are having trouble.

[anatess2]

On 10/26/2017 at 11:05 AM, DoctorLemon said:

It is not about Japan wanting to nuke North Korea.

It is about the fact that, if Japan has nukes and could nuke North Korea, then North Korea might be better inclined to behave and not do stuff like fire missiles over Japanese airspace.  If Japan, South Korea, and the US all have nukes they can independently decide to use, this complicates North Korea's provocation calculus (they have to avoid crossing three red lines for three different countries rather than just the red line for the US, which currently controls the nukes and is far enough removed from the conflict that North Korea can get away with more) and may lead to less provocative behavior on the part of North Korea.

Keep this in mind when talking what DPRK will or won't do.  CHINA.  The puppetmasters.