The North Korea situation

 
  lsrailfan Chief Commissioner

Location: Somewhere you're not
Was just wondering what everybody thinks of the developing situation over in North Korea, do you think a War between the U.S and North Korea could break out at any moment?

Kind Regards

Sponsored advertisement

  x31 Chief Commissioner

Location: gallifrey
The North Koreans had better hope not.
  Carnot Chief Commissioner

The biggest problem the allies would face in any conflict would be an artillery barrage on Seoul from the North - something they wouldn't hold back from doing if the US performed a targeted attack on any North Korean missile base.  

They need to sort out a diplomatic solution, but if North Korea pulls the trigger first then the response would be swift and much of the North would be reduced to a smouldering pile of ash under a mushroom cloud.
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
I've been listening to sabre rattling for years, going back even before the Cuban missile crisis. It subsides when the various leaders have finished their breast beating and posing, and the realisation dawns that nobody can win a nuclear war.
  bingley hall Minister for Railways

Location: Last train to Skaville
I've been listening to sabre rattling for years, going back even before the Cuban missile crisis. It subsides when the various leaders have finished their breast beating and posing, and the realisation dawns that nobody can win a nuclear war.
Valvegear

Agreed. Unfortunately this time Donald is involved.

Obviously he has already realised that the domestic policies he put forward before his election have no chance of turning around the fortunes of the USA.

So like all despots before him he's quickly realised there's nowt like a bit of biff to get the masses behind you.

Nice also to see Julie Bishop come forward with her "Australia could be in range of N Korean weapons" scaremongering. A bit like the WMDs in Iraq line she would have been touting as part of the Howard government back in 2003.
  lsrailfan Chief Commissioner

Location: Somewhere you're not
The only problem here is, that you have 2 unpredictable leaders at War, both Donald Trump and Kim Jon Un are both as mad as eachother, so it could lead to a conflict sooner than one thinks!

Kind Regards
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
The only problem here is, that you have 2 unpredictable leaders at War, both Donald Trump and Kim Jon Un are both as mad as eachother, so it could lead to a conflict sooner than one thinks!
lsrailfan
Quite so - each is as mad as a meat axe, but I think there'd be enough people with sufficient brains to stop either or both of them from pressing the button.
  Mr. Lane Chief Commissioner

North Korea is not a credible nuclear power yet: they are not believed to have a deliverable nuclear weapon. Very different to a controlled underground test. This might be the last chance the US has to put a stop to nuclear weapons development. The US and Israel have been successfully destroying nuclear programs throughout the Middle East for decades, the only reason North Korea has gotten this far is China.

The US does not want a repeat of the Korean War and get involved in a war with China. Also China does not want this either. The US has been banking on China being able to stop the North Korean nuclear program, which I am sure China also is not happy to see progress, but it hasn't worked.

I actually think there is a chance China might privately support a US strike on North Korea, but they will not support regime change or an occupation. They wont want a western power on their border.
  allan Chief Commissioner

Quite so - each is as mad as a meat axe, but I think there'd be enough people with sufficient brains to stop either or both of them from pressing the button.
Valvegear
I fear not...

We live in an imperfect word (I'm sure that this is news to most of you) where it is OK for one or more sovereign nations to defend themselves with nuclear weapons, but not OK for others. Simple truth is that the nuclear option is a very real and viable option for small or poor countries, because it is both cheap and effective. (In this respect, North Korea and Israel are on parallel tracks.)

We live in an imperfect word (I'm sure that this is news to most of you) where it is OK for any one of five sovereign nations to veto the actions of the rest of the world within the body set up to induce nations to work together for the good of the whole world. (That's the UNO, not FIFA!) These nations "earned" this right by winning WWII. Only a couple of them are more than regional powers, but, strangely enough, all are nuclear armed.

Now for the "biggy"... Can anyone here relate the quantity of nuclear waste emitted by coal-powered power stations to, say, that emitted by a 20 kiloton air-burst plutonium bomb? I'll call this a risk assessment. There's gotta be a few nuclear physicists here!
  lsrailfan Chief Commissioner

Location: Somewhere you're not
To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't mind for a change of leader in North Korea, that guy is a brute! the punishments that he dishes out to people who even look at him the wrong way is just absurd!! - If this means forcing him out, I don't have a problem with that either!

Kind Regards
  Mr. Lane Chief Commissioner

Quite so - each is as mad as a meat axe, but I think there'd be enough people with sufficient brains to stop either or both of them from pressing the button.
I fear not...

We live in an imperfect word (I'm sure that this is news to most of you) where it is OK for one or more sovereign nations to defend themselves with nuclear weapons, but not OK for others. Simple truth is that the nuclear option is a very real and viable option for small or poor countries, because it is both cheap and effective. (In this respect, North Korea and Israel are on parallel tracks.)

We live in an imperfect word (I'm sure that this is news to most of you) where it is OK for any one of five sovereign nations to veto the actions of the rest of the world within the body set up to induce nations to work together for the good of the whole world. (That's the UNO, not FIFA!) These nations "earned" this right by winning WWII. Only a couple of them are more than regional powers, but, strangely enough, all are nuclear armed.

Now for the "biggy"... Can anyone here relate the quantity of nuclear waste emitted by coal-powered power stations to, say, that emitted by a 20 kiloton air-burst plutonium bomb? I'll call this a risk assessment. There's gotta be a few nuclear physicists here!
allan
Being a nuclear power is what qualifies a nation for being a permanent member of the UN security council. This is one of the reasons why developing nuclear weapons after WW2 was such a priority for many nations.

Comparisons of nuclear fallout or emissions in such simple scenarios is kind of of impossible. Many elements are radioactive and all have different half lives. In addition due to different chemical properties some are absorbed differently than others into different parts of the body making them more or less dangerous. There are also different types of radiation. Finally a 20kt Plutonium implosion bomb like the Mk 3 "Fat Man" will have a completely different radioactive trace depending on where it is detonated. If the air burst is sufficiently high in altitude there will be little fallout at all, only the immediate radiation burst.
  M636C Minister for Railways

I've been listening to sabre rattling for years, going back even before the Cuban missile crisis. It subsides when the various leaders have finished their breast beating and posing, and the realisation dawns that nobody can win a nuclear war.

Agreed. Unfortunately this time Donald is involved.

Obviously he has already realised that the domestic policies he put forward before his election have no chance of turning around the fortunes of the USA.

So like all despots before him he's quickly realised there's nowt like a bit of biff to get the masses behind you.

Nice also to see Julie Bishop come forward with her "Australia could be in range of N Korean weapons" scaremongering. A bit like the WMDs in Iraq line she would have been touting as part of the Howard government back in 2003.
bingley hall
Assuming that the state of development of nuclear weapons in North Korea is at the stage generally spoken about, they do not yet have a nuclear warhead that can be delivered by the ballistic missiles they can build.

That leaves us with the possibility of a bomb being dropped from an aircraft. Assuming the bomb is no larger nor heavier than the two World War II weapons, it could be lifted by a Boeing B-29 or a similar aircraft.

Although North Korea has an Air Force equipped largely with obsolete aircraft, they don't have a B-29 nor one of the Tupelov copies. They have Tupelov Tu-28s, or Chinese Harbin H-5 copies. These are more or less equivalent to the English Electric "Canberra".

Even a flight of ten of these Tupelov 28s are unlikely to make it past the DMZ loaded with nuclear weapons, even if the DPRK have ten working bombs.

During the Cuban Missile crisis, the Soviet Union actually had nuclear armed ballistic missiles capable of reaching the USA.

Unless the state of development of nuclear weapons in the DPRK is significantly more advanced than is recognised, the USA could destroy the DPRK nuclear capability with conventional weapons and only China would be upset.

The bomb recently used in Afghanistan would presumably be useful in Korea. I note this has to be pulled out the loading ramp of a C-130, being too large for a current bomber. Similar bombs were dropped by Avro Lancasters during WWII. Perhaps the USA could use some obsolete aircraft.

Peter
  Mr. Lane Chief Commissioner

I've been listening to sabre rattling for years, going back even before the Cuban missile crisis. It subsides when the various leaders have finished their breast beating and posing, and the realisation dawns that nobody can win a nuclear war.

Agreed. Unfortunately this time Donald is involved.

Obviously he has already realised that the domestic policies he put forward before his election have no chance of turning around the fortunes of the USA.

So like all despots before him he's quickly realised there's nowt like a bit of biff to get the masses behind you.

Nice also to see Julie Bishop come forward with her "Australia could be in range of N Korean weapons" scaremongering. A bit like the WMDs in Iraq line she would have been touting as part of the Howard government back in 2003.
Assuming that the state of development of nuclear weapons in North Korea is at the stage generally spoken about, they do not yet have a nuclear warhead that can be delivered by the ballistic missiles they can build.

That leaves us with the possibility of a bomb being dropped from an aircraft. Assuming the bomb is no larger nor heavier than the two World War II weapons, it could be lifted by a Boeing B-29 or a similar aircraft.

Although North Korea has an Air Force equipped largely with obsolete aircraft, they don't have a B-29 nor one of the Tupelov copies. They have Tupelov Tu-28s, or Chinese Harbin H-5 copies. These are more or less equivalent to the English Electric "Canberra".

Even a flight of ten of these Tupelov 28s are unlikely to make it past the DMZ loaded with nuclear weapons, even if the DPRK have ten working bombs.

During the Cuban Missile crisis, the Soviet Union actually had nuclear armed ballistic missiles capable of reaching the USA.

Unless the state of development of nuclear weapons in the DPRK is significantly more advanced than is recognised, the USA could destroy the DPRK nuclear capability with conventional weapons and only China would be upset.

The bomb recently used in Afghanistan would presumably be useful in Korea. I note this has to be pulled out the loading ramp of a C-130, being too large for a current bomber. Similar bombs were dropped by Avro Lancasters during WWII. Perhaps the USA could use some obsolete aircraft.

Peter
M636C

No one flies B-29s or Tu-4s anymore Smile

In a precision strike over sovereign territory against a reactor facility they wouldn't be using MC-130s. The US would most likely opt for a weapon like the BLU-109 Bunker Buster dropped from F-15Es or could drop a myriad of other precision weapons such as Laser Guided Bombs or other JDAMs. The US has a wing of F-16s permanently stationed in South Korea, so the options are endless. Of course they may just opt for Tomahawks, but they are not great against hardened targets.
  mikesyd Chief Commissioner

Location: Lurking
Kim what's his name will fix this himself one day - one of his test missiles will go the wrong way - and land on a Chinese City, or perhaps even Vladivostok. Then the fun will really begin and Donald can sit back and watch - and no doubt claim that he fixed it.
  michaelgm Chief Commissioner

It seems the Sepos, have another two carrier groups on the way. A serious game of chicken, now.
  justapassenger Chief Commissioner

I've been listening to sabre rattling for years, going back even before the Cuban missile crisis. It subsides when the various leaders have finished their breast beating and posing, and the realisation dawns that nobody can win a nuclear war.
Valvegear
In the specific case of the DPRK, it usually subsides when a deal is reached for the USA to send the DPRK some extra grain shipments and for the DPRK to not arc up again until someone else is in the White House.

Quite so - each is as mad as a meat axe, but I think there'd be enough people with sufficient brains to stop either or both of them from pressing the button.
Valvegear
In the USA, there is the two man rule where a launch order from the President must be validated by the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary doesn't have the legal authority to countermand an order, but would certainly have the capacity to illegally order the military to not launch until the Vice-President and other Cabinet members have legally removed the President from office under the 25th Amendment - it's not only possible but actually quite probable in the event of an order for a first-use nuclear attack. The senior leadership of the military would probably side with the Secretary's wish to stop the launch order, and would assist with the temporary coup d'etat needed for the short period between the launch order being disobeyed and the Vice-President becoming the Acting President and formally rescinding the launch order.

The building blocks for this scenario were put in place by then-Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger during the dying days of the Nixon presidency, when he ordered the military to not act on orders from Nixon unless cleared by him or the Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. He also drew up plans for troop deployments in Washington in the event of there being any problems with the transfer of power from Nixon to Ford.

The good news here is that the current Secretary James Mattis seems to resemble Schlesinger in a number of ways - he is quite a hardliner on most military issues, but level-headed on nuclear weapons. He could certainly be relied upon to block a first use scenario.


As for the DPRK, who knows? The internal conflict would be a lot uglier than the US scenario of the Vice-President sending the Senate a letter saying the President is too crazy to stay in office.


It seems the Sepos, have another two carrier groups on the way. A serious game of chicken, now.
michaelgm
Are they actually headed that way though? The first time we heard that they were sending a carrier group it turned out that it was actually going in completely the other direction.

Usual BS tactics from Trump won't work here, he's not dealing with a bunch of gullible wannabe property investors this time.
  michaelgm Chief Commissioner

Channel 9 news, no link, sorry.  USS Nimitz, and Ronald Regan.
  x31 Chief Commissioner

Location: gallifrey
Turnbull has come out in the media today intimating Australia could be a target if the issue escalates.
  bingley hall Minister for Railways

Location: Last train to Skaville
Turnbull has come out in the media today intimating Australia could be a target if the issue escalates.
x31

Another reason why he's not fit to be PM.

Obviously the US has asked for Australian support in any potential action and Julie and Mal are now softening up the plebs just in case.

I doubt the North Koreans have much of a clue as to where Australia actually is.
  Carnot Chief Commissioner

Turnbull has come out in the media today intimating Australia could be a target if the issue escalates.

Another reason why he's not fit to be PM.

Obviously the US has asked for Australian support in any potential action and Julie and Mal are now softening up the plebs just in case.

I doubt the North Koreans have much of a clue as to where Australia actually is.
bingley hall
They still bear a grudge against us after we blew up their drug smuggling boat with F1-11s in 2006:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HVrFjGKFIE

They had an embassy in Canberra up until 2008.
  gordon_s1942 Chief Commissioner

Location: Central Tablelands of NSW
Before Nixon visited China and Whitlam established diplomatic relations with China, both they and North Korea used to broadcast fairly caustic reports about the USA and Australia, we (Australia) were called the 'Running Dogs of the Imperialistic War Mongering American Gangsters' and like today with their very 'sabre rattling' threats, promised us all sorts of dire consequences if they chose to do so.

While I disregard 90% of the threats that seem to be never ending against the World in general, its that 10% that has me worried as they are very unpredictable and I believe they would launch a preemptive assault even when they know it will result in their almost total annihilation.
  M636C Minister for Railways

About the worst Kim Jong Un could do is detonate his nuclear bombs in North Korea and hope the fallout destroys South Korea.

He can't fire his missiles with much more than standard high explosive warheads, and not particularly big ones.

He probably has enough missiles to destroy Seoul, of course.

But the US Destroyers have self defence missiles designed to intercept ballistic missiles.

So maybe only part of Seoul would be destroyed.

Meanwhile Pyongyang would be like a cup of coffee - flat, black and smoking...

But the risk to Australia is that we might have to do without Hyundai and Kia cars, and be stuck with Fords and Hondas from Thailand.

Peter
  Carnot Chief Commissioner

About the worst Kim Jong Un could do is detonate his nuclear bombs in North Korea and hope the fallout destroys South Korea.

He can't fire his missiles with much more than standard high explosive warheads, and not particularly big ones.

He probably has enough missiles to destroy Seoul, of course.

But the US Destroyers have self defence missiles designed to intercept ballistic missiles.

So maybe only part of Seoul would be destroyed.

Meanwhile Pyongyang would be like a cup of coffee - flat, black and smoking...

But the risk to Australia is that we might have to do without Hyundai and Kia cars, and be stuck with Fords and Hondas from Thailand.

Peter
M636C
The problem is that there's not much one can do to stop several thousand old-school artillery shells and rockets landing in Seoul in the first wave of a barrage.  25 million people live in an area that's hard to evacuate:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/north-korea-artillery_us_58f631a4e4b0b9e9848eb990
  dthead Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
wonder how the airline and sea traffic is reacting to all of this, it must be a worry !

Regards,
David Head
  justapassenger Chief Commissioner

There's the possibility that this might cause the AFL match to be held in China between the Gold Coast Suns and Port Power to be cancelled.

This deal is all about Kochie using his role at Port Power to do deals for his businesses, I'd love to see this one fail and Kochie take it up the @®se.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.