The Korean Missile Crisis Thread

[rickschoppers]

You must be bi then. Your avitar is more explicit than mine since I just wanted to show the Russian leader for who he really is. Carry on.

[birding]

Depends on your definition of provocation I suspect NK sees all the excercises on their border, the positioning of missiles, flying of bombers and sailing a war fleet close as provocation and if Russia did this to say Japan the US would think of it as provocation as well.

But tell me what law is North Korea breaking by developing missiles and nukes or is it just about what the could do, might do some time in the future.

You see they could, might invade the south with regular forces as they did all those years ago and with what they have now they may very well succeed.

We see the same thing with Russia, Russia could, Russia may, Russia Might all scare tactics to make boogeymen for the sheeple.

[jamescollister]

Seems for all the talk of ICBMs, someone forgot the NK subs, modified Kilo class, ballistic missile submarines.

Nothing that powerful, but one or two tube missile launchers, that can carry nukes, if they have small enough ones.

Not nuclear powered, so would need refueling at sea, but they have, allegedly 20 of them 'plus marine launched cruise type missiles, which could again carry small nukes.

Those subs, could in theory be in international waters off the coast of the USA, dangerous game, sure the US will be trying to local them.

If Kim is as mad as they say, sure he will have deployed his subs where they are the biggest threat possible.

[rickschoppers]

North Korea's hidden submarine threat is another worry as regime warns it's 'ready' for war

The chilling thought of North Korea's fully submersible submarines firing a nuclear ballistic missile isn't as far-fetched as some might think.
The submarine threat adds to growing fears in the region as North Korean leader Kim Jong Un's nuclear weapons ambitions show no signs of slowing.

nuclear attack threat from a North Korean submarine is one of the nightmare scenarios facing Japan and South Korea.

The chilling thought of North Korea's fully submersible submarines firing a nuclear ballistic missile isn't as far-fetched as some might think. Pyongyang has made major advances in weapons in recent years and shown a willingness to use its submarines for offensive military actions.

Indeed, last month was the seventh anniversary of the sinking of South Korea's Cheonan navy ship by a North Korean submarine torpedo attack. That aggression killed 46 sailors and wasn't the first time the reclusive North had made incursions into South Korean waters.

The submarine threat adds to growing fears in the region as North Korean leader Kim Jong Un's nuclear weapons ambitions show no signs of slowing. It also comes as a U.S. carrier strike force led by the USS Carl Vinson sailed toward the Korean Peninsula.

Not surprisingly, North Korea decried the deployment of the American carrier task force to the volatile region. "If the U.S. dares opt for a military action … the DPRK is ready to react to any mode of war desired by the U.S.," the state-run Korean Central News Agency said Monday. DPRK is short for the North's formal name, Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Experts believe North Korea's navy has around 70 submarines in its fleet, although only a handful today are believed to be capable of firing submarine-launched ballistic missiles or so-called SLBMs. What's more, defense analysts believe Pyongyang has the capability today of building a nuclear warhead small enough to arm a submarine missile.

Last August, North Korean media showed off video of a so-called KN-11 submarine missile being launched from eastern coastal waters. Images of the North Korean dictator pointing to the missile launch were shown on the state television network.

The submarine-launched missile flew about 310 miles toward Japan. The test set a new distance record for Pyongyang's SLBM program, and experts suggest the ballistic missile has the capability to travel more than 600 miles.

"The problem with the SLBM is that it exposes South Korea's flanks to attack," said Bruce Klingner, an Asia and national security specialist at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based conservative think tank.

Klingner, a former CIA deputy division chief for Korea, explained that the THAAD anti-missile system deployed last month by the U.S. in South Korea is focused on identifying missile threats from the North. As a result, a submarine missile from the North Korean navy could be launched behind radar and evade defense systems.

Similarly, missiles fired by North Korean submarines off the east coast of Japan might be able to dodge detection from Japan's Patriot anti-missile system by launching from behind radar.

Joint U.S.-South Korea military exercises this year included drills on destroying the North's submarines.

Klingner said some people have been dismissive of the Pyongyang submarine threat by maintaining that the North's vessels are "old and noisy." The noise comes from the submarine's diesel-powered engines.

Yet in 2015 South Korean defense officials reported a sudden disappearance of around 50 of the North's submarines.

"We didn't know where they were at the time," said Klingner. "One would hope that we would keep very close tabs on those that could launch the SLBM."

Advances in North Korea's land-based weapons development have been helped by its submarine program.

As an example, Pyongyang in February showed off a new medium- to long-range ballistic missile that is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and uses solid-fuel technology. The land-based ballistic missile is believed to use the same technology of the KN-11 solid-fuel submarine missiles.

Solid fuel offers significant advantages over liquid-fuel rockets because it makes the missile easier to hide, requires less support and allows for faster launches.

"All of that is very worrisome because that may very well have a nuclear weapon someday," said Klingner.

He said the North Korea's liquid propellant ballistic missiles, such as the so-called No-Dong medium-range, road-mobile system already is believed to be nuclear capable "so that means Japan and South Korea are under nuclear threat today."

The secretive regime also is working to build an intercontinental ballistic missile that can reach North America. In January, NBC News reported that Pyongyang could test-fire the ICBM "at any time, at any place," quoting a senior regime official in North Korea.

The U.S. has a ground-based interceptor missile and radar system designed to detect and kill ICBM missiles. Thirty-six such interceptors are stationed in Alaska and California, and the military expects to have a total of 44 in place by the end of this year, according to a defense official.

"Their conventional forces maybe not very capable at the moment, but they have a lot of weapons of mass destruction," said Nicholas Eberstadt, a researcher at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank based in Washington. "Even if they would end up losing a war, … they could kill an awful lot of people on our side."

Hidden sub threat is another worry as North Korea warns it's 'ready' for war

[Norton]

North Korea- A Nuclear Threat or Not

Yep they are on the list hence they and the other 8 must be.

United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea possess approximately 16,300 nuclear weapons in total.

[DrB0b]

Seems for all the talk of ICBMs, someone forgot the NK subs, modified Kilo class, ballistic missile submarines.

Nobody forgot them. Nobody cares much about them except for some sensationalising journos and other people whose living depends on whipping up fear. Those things (the subs although I suppose this would also apply to the journos) are so noisy they can be heard from the next continent. NORK subs are no threat to anybody except their own sailors and the occasional Japanese tourist on a seaside holiday.

North Korea's fully submersible submarines

Gosh! Fully submersible submarines, you say? That's scary. Pretty soon they'll have fully aeronautical planes too and then we'll all be doomed!

[Norton]

Side note. Had lunch today with a Korean friend. He just returned from Seoul.
Said he and most Koreans aren't much worried over NK nuc threat. They have been listening to it annually for years.

Far more discussion and concern over the recent impeachment of President Park and who will replace her.

The winner of the election will have a far greater impact on future NK/SK relations than all the bluster from Trump and others.

[jamescollister]

Diesel-electric subs are quiet, much quieter then nuke subs, are you saying that North Korean can't build a copy of a kilo class sub.
Seems they have built a lot of ships and submarines over time.

Noisy or not, they are blue water subs and can go anywhere in international waters, that's allowed.

They only need to be in range of the target to fire, question is, does NK have the nukes to do so.

Biological or nuke, they have the capacity to deliver them, by ship or sub, North Korea dies that day, but if Kim is mad, who knows.

[DrB0b]

Diesel-electric subs are quiet, much quieter then nuke subs

And? NK has one, ONE, sub capable of launching a ballistic missile and it's a nuclear clunker that barely works. Nevertheless the sky is, no doubt, still falling.

[jamescollister]

Diesel-electric subs are quiet, much quieter then nuke subs

And? NK has one, ONE, sub capable of launching a ballistic missile and it's a nuclear clunker that barely works. Nevertheless the sky is, no doubt, still falling.

No 20 smaller kilo class copy subs capable of launching ballistic missiles, one or two tube boats.

That's a big bang, if they work, not the end of the world, but a big threat, short range, 250 miles, but if your coast/city, may make people think twice.

Not a lot know about NKs nuclear capabilities, size yield etc, but willing to say, if you live in Seattle and get nuked, won't be a good day.

[Lancelot]

Another solution, just walk away?

Per Foreign Policy:

Argument
It’s Time for America to Cut South Korea Loose
The first step to solving the North Korean problem is removing U.S. troops from the middle of it.
By Doug Bandow
April 13, 2017

Asia contains the world’s two most populous nations, the country with the largest Muslim population, the two largest economies after America, and the next superpower and peer competitor to the United States. But when U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson visited the continent recently, small, impoverished North Korea nearly monopolized his attention.
Why is the United States, which dominates the globe militarily, politically, and economically, fixated on this poor, isolated, and distant nation? Because America has gotten entangled where it does not belong.
Trending Articles


Trump Should Make the Case for Trade With China
Past administrations have made progress in enforcing trade rules with China, but not in convincing the American public…[at]

Washington has been deeply involved in the Korean Peninsula since the end of World War II. Subsequently, the Cold War gave a zero-sum quality to international relations, with Washington’s loss being the Soviet Union’s gain. Having invested some 37,000 lives to save South Korea during the Korean War, America’s credibility was also at stake. And with the “loss” of China to communism fresh on Americans’ minds, nobody was willing to see another Asian nation go red.
But that world disappeared long ago.
The Korean Peninsula has lost its geopolitical significance, South Korea its helplessness, and America’s Korea commitment its purpose.
The Korean Peninsula has lost its geopolitical significance, South Korea its helplessness, and America’s Korea commitment its purpose. While there is much to criticize in the approach of Donald Trump’s administration to the rest of the world, the president correctly sees the need for a foreign policy that more effectively protects America’s interests. A good place to start shifting course is the region home to the world’s newest and least responsible nuclear power.
The Koreas are no longer a proxy battleground between superpowers. There was a time when U.S. withdrawal from a confrontation with a Soviet ally in Asia would have, analysts believed, signaled weakness a continent away in Europe. But the Soviets are long gone and the cause for American commitment with them. An inter-Korean war would be tragic and the body count enormous, but absent American involvement the fighting would largely be confined to the peninsula. The continued presence of U.S. forces, by contrast, virtually guarantees the spread of conflict.
South Korea’s defense no longer requires Washington’s presence. The South’s economy began racing past its northern antagonist during the 1960s. Democracy arrived in the late 1980s. By the 1990s, when mass starvation stalked Pyongyang as Seoul’s economy boomed, the gap between the two Koreas was already huge and growing. The South’s military potential is correspondingly great though as yet unrealized — in part because dependence on the U.S. presence has affected strategic choices.
Yet America’s military presence has remained sacrosanct. Jimmy Carter’s plan to bring home U.S. troops was opposed even by his own appointees. Ronald Reagan pushed a more muscular confrontation with the Soviet Union and other communist states. With the end of the Cold War, his successors[at]expanded[at]alliance commitments, particularly in Europe, but also in Asia. Today, 28,500 troops remain in South Korea, backed up by U.S. forces in Okinawa and other Asian-Pacific bases, and highlighted by periodic decisions to overfly the North with bombers or send aircraft carriers to nearby waters whenever Washington wants to demonstrate “resolve” to Pyongyang.
So why is America still there?

FP goes on with a few observations

1 Carter tried to remove US troops from SK, but was opposed by even his own appointees

2 SK began a nuclear program in the 70's, but stopped because of US pressure

3 A nuclear armed SK might increase (nuclear) "proliferation; however, it might also motivate China to get serious about curtailing Fat Boy.

General Fox Conner stressed three requirements before engaging in a military conflict:

1 Don't fight unless you have to
2 Don't fight alone
3 Don't fight for long

We really don't have to fight NK (Short of them launching against the US); we'll be fighting alone in NK and yeah, it will be long...

[Maanaam]

A crazy, insecure narcissist with a terrible haircut and access to nuclear weapons is a serious threat to world peace.

Who? Trump or Un?

[bsnub]

someone forgot the NK subs, modified Kilo class

No 20 smaller kilo class copy subs capable of launching ballistic missiles, one or two tube boats.

Noisy or not, they are blue water subs and can go anywhere in international waters, that's allowed.

They do not have Kilo class submarines. The only Russian subs they ever had were old Whiskey class boats and they are all out of service. The only subs they have are domestically produced and small in size, they may be able to head out into the blue water but would not be there for long. NK's navy is old and obsolete. A submarine attack is just fear mongering.

[Lancelot]

Interesting doco from NHK; how Fat Boy gets cash to buy presents -and buy loyalty- from the NK elites. China could pressure some of its banks to not do business with NK, but there is always another bank that will. Complex problems...

[Neverna]

A crazy, insecure narcissist with a terrible haircut and access to nuclear weapons is a serious threat to world peace.

Who? Trump or Un?

Nice to see someone got the point.

[rickschoppers]

Deleted

[Neo]

You still scared Rick.?

[Neo]

It’s Time for America to Cut South Korea Loose
The first step to solving the North Korean problem is removing U.S. troops from the middle of it.

So why is America still there?

Because America is a sore loser. America would bomb the fuck out of NK and plant a flag on it just to prove a point.

Look at Vietnam, 30 years of vetoes and economic sanctions only lifted when it realised that it couldn't cripple them even after all that time and that everyone else was having perfectly normal relations with what is a thriving country.

Good article.

[Looper]

Subsequently, the Cold War gave a zero-sum quality to international relations, with Washington’s loss being the Soviet Union’s gain.

Cold war nuclear driven Mutually Assured Destruction is not really an example of zero-sum in game theory. It is a Nash equilibrium with a zero-sum stable state and negative-sum unstable state.

[rickschoppers]

You still scared Rick.?

No. Just didn't like what I wrote. I was never scared.

[Neo]

Subsequently, the Cold War gave a zero-sum quality to international relations, with Washington’s loss being the Soviet Union’s gain.

Cold war nuclear driven Mutually Assured Destruction is not really an example of zero-sum in game theory. It is a Nash equilibrium with a zero-sum stable state and negative-sum unstable state.

Thanks for clearing that up Looper

[Lancelot]

Subsequently, the Cold War gave a zero-sum quality to international relations, with Washington’s loss being the Soviet Union’s gain.

Cold war nuclear driven Mutually Assured Destruction is not really an example of zero-sum in game theory. It is a Nash equilibrium with a zero-sum stable state and negative-sum unstable state.

Thanks for clearing that up Looper

Hmmm, I missed that line in the move

[Lancelot]

It’s Time for America to Cut South Korea Loose
The first step to solving the North Korean problem is removing U.S. troops from the middle of it.

So why is America still there?

Because America is a sore loser. America would bomb the fuck out of NK and plant a flag on it just to prove a point.

Good article.

Not so sure about the sore loser part. South Korea's citizens enjoy a prosperous economy and comfortable living; Non elite Koreans often starve to death. That part was successful, IMHO.

More like countries that station troops abroad are often reluctant to bring them home, not only the US.

The more I think of this, the more I think the best solution is to remove US troops from the Korean Peninsula and Japan. This last week, the tail has been wagging the dog; other two bit dictators/terrorist groups will eventually try to copy Fat Boy, because, well, its working.

NK could already strike the US, via selling nuclear technology to a third party.

[jamescollister]

someone forgot the NK subs, modified Kilo class

No 20 smaller kilo class copy subs capable of launching ballistic missiles, one or two tube boats.

Noisy or not, they are blue water subs and can go anywhere in international waters, that's allowed.

They do not have Kilo class submarines. The only Russian subs they ever had were old Whiskey class boats and they are all out of service. The only subs they have are domestically produced and small in size, they may be able to head out into the blue water but would not be there for long. NK's navy is old and obsolete. A submarine attack is just fear mongering.

Can't read bsuub, they build their own, the word copy may have missed your simple mind.

[misskit]

Earlier on this thread, I posted an article about the Japanese not being worried about North Korea.

Seems things have changed. Earlier today...

Prefectures briefed on missile preparedness

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20170421_26/