12 ms·
Missiles of North Korea
- forvelin 10y agoIt will be interesting to see that who will 'liberate' North Korea and how.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago> who will 'liberate' North Korea and how A 2011 article from The Atlantic concerning Pakistan's nukes [1] offers clues as to how North Korea's arsenal might be rendered safe: "This 'disablement campaign,' as one former senior Special Operations planner calls it, would be the most taxing, most dangerous of any special mission that JSOC could find itself tasked with—orders of magnitude more difficult and expansive than Abbottabad. ... JSOC would take the lead, however, accompanied by civilian experts, and has been training for such an operation for years. JSOC forces are trained to breach the inner perimeters of nuclear installations, and then to find, secure, evacuate—or, if that’s not possible, to 'render safe'—any live weapons. At the Nevada National Security Site, northwest of Las Vegas, Delta Force and SEAL Team Six squadrons practice “Deep Underground Shelter” penetrations, using extremely sensitive radiological detection devices that can pick up trace amounts of nuclear material and help Special Operations locate the precise spot where the fissile material is stored. JSOC has also built mock Pashtun villages, complete with hidden mock nuclear-storage depots, at a training facility on the East Coast, so SEALs and Delta Force operatives can practice there. At the same time American military and intelligence forces have been training in the U.S for such a disablement campaign, they have also been quietly pre-positioning the necessary equipment in the region. In the event of a coup, U.S. forces would rush into the country, crossing borders, rappelling down from helicopters, and parachuting out of airplanes, so they could begin securing known or suspected nuclear-storage sites. According to the former senior Special Operations planner, JSOC units’ first tasks might be to disable tactical nuclear weapons—because those are more easily mated, and easier to move around, than long-range missiles. In a larger disablement campaign, the U.S. would likely mobilize the Army’s 20th Support Command, whose Nuclear Disablement Teams would accompany Special Operations detachments or Marine companies into the country. These teams are trained to engage in what the military delicately calls “sensitive site exploitation operations on nuclear sites”—meaning that they can destroy a nuclear weapon without setting it off. Generally, a mated nuclear warhead can be deactivated when its trigger mechanism is disabled—and so both the Army teams and JSOC units train extensively on the types of trigger mechanisms that Pakistani weapons are thought to use. According to some scenarios developed by American war planners, after as many weapons as possible were disabled and as much fissile material as possible was secured, U.S. troops would evacuate quickly—because the final stage of the plan involves precision missile strikes on nuclear bunkers, using special 'hard and deeply buried target' munitions." [1] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/12/the-ally-from-hell/308730/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/12/the-ally...
- Pyxl101 10y agoIt's interesting that the article says, "In the event of a coup, [US special forces will invade to take control of missiles]". Is the phrase "in the event of a coup" just a pretext for having such plans in place, or is it an actual recognition that the current government is not crazy enough to launch a suicidal offensive campaign at the rest of the world? And so the concern is future regimes or terrorists... Anyway, I hope NK understands that any kind of unprovoked offensive nuclear action on their part will result in the rest of the world banding together to crush them. I think they do understand that. It would probably happen to any country that uses a nuke offensively, and maybe defensively too.
- hueving 10y ago>just a pretext for having such plans in place If the US was planning a coup, why would they bother destroying all of their nuclear weapons?
- boomboomsubban 10y ago>. Is the phrase "in the event of a coup" just a pretext for having such plans in place, or is it an actual recognition that the current government is not crazy enough to launch a suicidal offensive campaign at the rest of the world? It's merely discussing one such event that could lead to this plan being used, though the risks of failure mean it's unlikely to happen without a coup. What could North Korea do to make it seem like an attack was imminent and then leave enough time for this plan to take place? North Korea will only use nukes if they're in threat of being crushed anyway, or if they have the support of China and either Russia or the US.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- trhway 10y agoNK couldn't and can't be liberated because it has tens of thousands of artillery pointing toward Seoul, a city of 10M+.
- Avalaxy 10y agoThat is always being repeated, but I wonder if it still holds up with modern systems like the iron dome, and especially laser weapons that are being tested right now. A combination of pre-emptive strikes on NK's artillery, combined with anti-artillery radars and a laser weapons air defense network could render NK powerless. Edit: that assumes that SK would be the 'liberator', but chances that it would be China are probably higher.
- gambiting 10y agoThe thing is, that even if few % of their artillery/missiles get through, that can still mean hundreds of shots hitting Seoul and thousands of people dying. No one wants to take that risk.
- Shivetya 10y agothere was a study some time ago dismissing the most dire projections of these artillery pieces http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-special-reports/mind-the-gap-between-rhetoric-and-reality/ http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-special-reports/mind-the... While they will end up killing lots of people and causing heavy economic damage the real inability to deliver on the threat that has been kept alive by those who want a stronger stance against North Korea is likely one reason they are pursuing nuclear weapons. They know they don't have a strong threat and they want one. Whether this is to truly for self protection or for aggression is for teh intelligence wonks to figure out
- crdoconnor 10y agoIron dome is ridiculously ineffective even against home made rockets, with a success rate of about 5%: http://thebulletin.org/evidence-shows-iron-dome-not-working7318 http://thebulletin.org/evidence-shows-iron-dome-not-working7...
- sfifs 10y agoIt's not in anyone's interest to do so. No valuable natural resources to strip. Too much integration cost for South Korea. China finds a buffer state useful. US gets an excuse to keep troops and millitary equipment stationed in China's backdoor.
- gerardnll 10y agoWhat about the missiles of US, Russia or any other western country? I may be afraid of them too
- sgt101 10y agoThe summary is simple; they have missiles that can hit anywhere in the world at any time. There you go!
- gerardnll 10y agoSame as the other nations I mentioned.
- mikekchar 10y agoThey have you covered: https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/ https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/
- crdoconnor 10y ago>Due to the growing obsolescence of North Korea’s conventional military capabilities, North Korea has pivoted towards a national security strategy based on asymmetric capabilities and weapons of mass destruction North Korea's nuclear weapons program stems from a reaction to the US deploying cannons and missiles on the border and pointing them at them in 1958. This freaked them out a little.
- astebbin 10y agoWhat do you mean to imply? Do you refer to a specific incident in 1958? Or, do you blame US military aggression for the North's current nuclear program? Perhaps if North Korea hadn't invaded the South in 1948, there would be no need for a militarized border and heavy US defensive presence. Rather than a vanguard invasion force, I've read that the 28,500 US military personnel in Korea today exist as a sort of political tripwire. There aren't enough of them to hold the line, let alone successfully invade the North, but their deaths in the event of a conflict would commit the US to the fight.
- crdoconnor 10y agoSimply that the North Korean nuclear program was largely a reaction to deployed US nukes on the 38th parallel. I'm bemused that this is considered a controversial fact. Edit : I meant to say nuclear missiles and artillery were deployed in 1958 which is what NK reacted to, they had conventional weaponry deployed before that.
- astebbin 10y agoAh, I understand now. Thanks for clarifying. In this light, I'll note that Bush the elder removed US all nuclear arms from the Korea peninsula in 1991 (although Pyongyang's certainly still in range of American missiles and bombers): http://thediplomat.com/2013/03/not-a-good-idea-american-nukes-in-south-korea/ http://thediplomat.com/2013/03/not-a-good-idea-american-nuke... Overall, my impression is that North Korea fears a conventional ROK/US invasion much more than a nuclear exchange scenario, and that this fear (rather than of American nuclear artillery, missiles, etc) has been the primary motivation behind their nuclear arms development. I don't think a conventional US invasion is likely, hence my comment. I also don't think the situation would be different if NK didn't have a nuclear arms program, given their alliance (or subordinate relationship?) with China.
- willvarfar 10y agoFor those interested, here's an article on the NK ballistic missile sub: http://www.hisutton.com/North%20Koreas%20next%20Ballistic%20Missile%20Sub.html http://www.hisutton.com/North%20Koreas%20next%20Ballistic%20... And ballistic missile subs of the world: http://www.hisutton.com/Nuclear%20Missile%20Submarines.html http://www.hisutton.com/Nuclear%20Missile%20Submarines.html
- jzwinck 10y agoI walked into an NK submarine from 20 years ago. I was not impressed. It had a regular old VCR sitting on a regular shelf like in a motorhome. And construction that would make a Victorian pipefitter blush. It ran aground during routine operations which is not so surprising given the utter lack of precision instruments evident. I would be surprised if in the past 20 years they went from that to a usable nuclear missile platform. You can see photos from someone else here: http://www.catracing.org/hendrb/out-and-about-in-korea-tongil-unification-park-north-korean-submarine/ http://www.catracing.org/hendrb/out-and-about-in-korea-tongi...
- oceanofsolaris 10y agoYour link explicitly mentions that the equipment found in this specific vessel is probably not the original one: Speaking of equipment, it was obvious the submarine was stripped of any useful electronic equipment, such as navigation or communication equipment. In its place were items taken from a dump. I imagine that all the original equipment was removed and analyzed by a South Korean Intelligence Service before the Sub became accessible to the public.
- mrskeltal 10y agoThe artwork is fantastic
- ainiriand 10y agoHow many countries has North Korea invaded so far? I think that they are only trying to cover themselves from foreign threats.
- willvarfar 10y ago> The Korean War (25 June 1950 – 27 July 1953) began when North Korea invaded South Korea First paragraph of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War
- ainiriand 10y agoI don't think that North Korea was a sovereign state at the moment, more like a puppet to other countries. NK was 2 years old and it was conceived by URSS.
- TulliusCicero 10y agoDo you have any evidence that China or the USSR pushed them into invading South Korea, or are you just guessing randomly? Because my understanding is that it was NK persuading other countries to support them in the war. > By 1949, South Korean forces had reduced the active number of communist guerrillas in the South from 5,000 to 1,000. However, Kim Il-sung believed that the guerrillas had weakened the South Korean military and that a North Korean invasion would be welcomed by much of the South Korean population. Kim began seeking Stalin's support for an invasion in March 1949, travelling to Moscow to attempt to persuade him.[94] > Initially, Stalin did not think the time was right for a war in Korea.[95] Chinese Communist forces were still fighting in China. American forces were still stationed in South Korea (they would complete their withdrawal in June 1949) and Stalin did not want the Soviet Union to become embroiled in a war with the United States.[95] > By spring 1950, Stalin believed the strategic situation had changed. The Soviets had detonated their first nuclear bomb in September 1949; American soldiers had fully withdrawn from Korea; the Americans had not intervened to stop the communist victory in China, and Stalin calculated that the Americans would be even less willing to fight in Korea—which had seemingly much less strategic significance. The Soviets had also cracked the codes used by the US to communicate with the US embassy in Moscow, and reading these dispatches convinced Stalin that Korea did not have the importance to the US that would warrant a nuclear confrontation.[96] Stalin began a more aggressive strategy in Asia based on these developments, including promising economic and military aid to China through the Sino–Soviet Friendship, Alliance, and Mutual Assistance Treaty.[97] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War
- karmacoda 10y agoWhat is NK's goal? They know perfectly well that to launch a nuke against another country, especially the US, could result in NK being entirely obliterated. ~30 mostly little cites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_North_Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_North_Korea How far along has this strategy been considered?
- weavie 10y agoDoes NK as a country have any goals? I think it is more just the few at the top just want to stay at the top, and play whatever games they deem necessary in order to do so.
- roryisok 10y agoEverything that NK does is in order to keep those people at the top. It is the absolute definition of a dictatorship. Kim Jong-un only wants to maintain his own wealth and control. That is the only goal
- anticodon 10y agoIt's too simple view to be true. For one thing, Kim Jong-un understands that if he's not in control, he and his family members are dead. Of course, they want to maintain wealth and control, just like everyone else. But they also don't want to become dead. And they're dead in either of situations: - if they relax the control - if some other country decide to "liberate" NK They probably don't see any possible way out.
- throwanem 10y ago> What is NK's goal? To preserve its sovereignty, and preserve the inflow of foreign aid that the regime uses to prop itself up by preventing the starvation and likely resulting chaos that'd occur if forced to try to support its population from its own ill-managed resources. I'm sure at least someone close to Kim knows that to actually nuke an American city would invite massive retaliation. But seeming plausibly crazy enough to do it anyway is a good way to make an otherwise absurdly insignificant little country seem like one that needs to be reckoned with. They're banking on the idea that the US will go far out of its way to avoid even the remote possibility of even a minor nuclear strike, and thus far it's worked out for them.
- darkhorn 10y agoI remember that the USA was telling us that Iraq had missiles reaching West Europe. This is same lie. Execration!
- WatchDog 10y agoIt seems more likely to me that North Korea would deploy nukes via lower tech means. Commercial shipping or aircraft from mainland China, maybe even smuggling nukes into Mexico and across the border. Their missile systems have a lot of scrutiny upon them and they seem unreliable at best. North Korea already moves a lot of people and trade via China, they could probably co-ordinate Nuclear strikes on several coastal cities just by putting them onto shipping containers.
- devoply 10y agoYou understand the nukes are for show right. That sort of land mass would be completely decimated by whoever they decided to use those against. Like utterly and totally destroyed. What US worries about it N. Korea giving it to other countries against their interests, countries that they wish to keep under their thumb like Iran.
- WatchDog 10y agoRight they clearly couldn't win any conflict, but it doesn't stop them trying to inflict as much damage as they can before going out.