You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 06, 2016, 08:15:42 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: North Korea  (Read 4509 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: North Korea
« Reply #25 on: May 24, 2010, 06:35:00 PM »
Wait a minute here the North and Soth Korean nations are still technically at war they just have a very long cease-fire. If they want to resume war the South can escalate this and go back to war invading the North then ask for our help under our treaty but we can hardly fight another war and this would be a real enemy that would be more than capable of doing massive damage.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: North Korea
« Reply #26 on: May 24, 2010, 08:30:22 PM »
Yeah, the problem is that fighting (or even competing) against a total nut-job is something most people try to avoid.  You never know if he's crazy enough to bomb the entire peninsula to glass.

Offline Inkidu

  • E's Resident Girlomancer, Dedicated Philogynist, The Compartive of a Superlative, SLG's Sammich Life-Giver
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Location: In a staring contest with the Void.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: North Korea
« Reply #27 on: May 24, 2010, 08:34:16 PM »
Yeah, the problem is that fighting (or even competing) against a total nut-job is something most people try to avoid.  You never know if he's crazy enough to bomb the entire peninsula to glass.
Well the U.S. could do some really black ops stuff and blow up N.K. nuclear facilities and blame it on the nation's own incompetence. It would not be hard. We just don't want to deal with it because of course, America would send them disaster relief in this horrible tragedy.

Offline Asuras

Re: North Korea
« Reply #28 on: May 24, 2010, 09:03:27 PM »
Quote from: Oniya
Yeah, the problem is that fighting (or even competing) against a total nut-job is something most people try to avoid.  You never know if he's crazy enough to bomb the entire peninsula to glass.

The question is whether or not you want to let a total nut-job acquire enough nuclear weapons with sophisticated enough delivery systems to turn an entire continent to glass.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: North Korea
« Reply #29 on: May 24, 2010, 09:07:28 PM »
I'm pretty sure he's already got them, so that's a moot point.

Offline Asuras

Re: North Korea
« Reply #30 on: May 24, 2010, 09:12:07 PM »
He can hardly throw things at  Japan, so the delivery systems are questionable.

The warheads...only a few. So not moot.

Offline Brandon

Re: North Korea
« Reply #31 on: May 24, 2010, 10:00:59 PM »
If you're going to war against a nut job with Nuclear weapons you have to assume that the delivery system is advanced enough to do heavy damage to all the surronding areas. That way, if a launch happens you're prepared for it.

Since the last test firing of North Korea's missle system, Im sure the Japanese have already put several anti missile defenses in place. If thats the case, and I hope it is, they would need to worry more about evacuating civilians from irradiated areas more then loosing more valuable infrastructure and lives.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: North Korea
« Reply #32 on: May 24, 2010, 10:02:01 PM »
He can hardly throw things at  Japan, so the delivery systems are questionable.

The warheads...only a few. So not moot.

Point of fact.. his INTERCONTINENTAL ones are iffy.. the ones he used back in the 90s were able to throw themselves over the central islands with no problem. He can pretty much hit anything in the main islands of Japan and South Korea. Has been able to for over a decade.

Offline Asuras

Re: North Korea
« Reply #33 on: May 24, 2010, 11:28:34 PM »
Quote from: Brandon
If you're going to war against a nut job with Nuclear weapons you have to assume that the delivery system is advanced enough to do heavy damage to all the surronding areas. That way, if a launch happens you're prepared for it.

No, when I want to go to war with a nut-job with nuclear weapons I want to attack him long before their delivery systems are capable of doing heavy damage to surrounding areas. When that is the case it is far, far too late. Millions of people will be dead if you wait for that fact.

When the North Koreans have test fired missiles at Japan, they have missed. They lack the delivery systems, their warheads are unreliable and millions of lives are at stake. But they will get better the longer we wait.

Quote from: Brandon
Since the last test firing of North Korea's missle system, Im sure the Japanese have already put several anti missile defenses in place. If thats the case, and I hope it is, they would need to worry more about evacuating civilians from irradiated areas more then loosing more valuable infrastructure and lives.

The funny thing is that in the US liberals refuse funding to missile defense systems because of how ineffective they are. And I don't disagree with this fact personally.

Quote from: Caille del Noire
Point of fact.. his INTERCONTINENTAL ones are iffy.. the ones he used back in the 90s were able to throw themselves over the central islands with no problem. He can pretty much hit anything in the main islands of Japan and South Korea. Has been able to for over a decade.

"Point of fact" means something but never mind.

Has the DPRK ever actually hit anything in mainland Japan?

And then with the answer to that question answer your question that they can throw things over the central islands of Japan with "no problem."
« Last Edit: May 24, 2010, 11:32:50 PM by Asuras »

Offline Vekseid

Re: North Korea
« Reply #34 on: May 25, 2010, 04:50:22 AM »
No, when I want to go to war with a nut-job with nuclear weapons I want to attack him long before their delivery systems are capable of doing heavy damage to surrounding areas. When that is the case it is far, far too late. Millions of people will be dead if you wait for that fact.

Millions of lives would be put at immediate risk just from conventional bombardment by engaging hostilities, and the ABM systems currently deployed to South Korea and Japan are not currently capable of bringing down every conventional missile the Norks could launch.

Quote
When the North Koreans have test fired missiles at Japan, they have missed. They lack the delivery systems, their warheads are unreliable and millions of lives are at stake. But they will get better the longer we wait.

By the time North Korea manages to miniaturize its nukes enough to place them on a reliable missile, Japan and South Korea are going to have a lot more and significantly better missile defense systems.

Quote
The funny thing is that in the US liberals refuse funding to missile defense systems because of how ineffective they are. And I don't disagree with this fact personally.

The 'US liberals' have not been able to stop us from providing five AEGIS ballistic defense systems to Japan. They certainly weren't able to stop the PAC-3's 100% success rate.

North Korea's nukes escalate things, yes, but ballistic missiles are not the threat of the future.

Offline CountessJess

Re: North Korea
« Reply #35 on: May 25, 2010, 05:11:27 AM »
I think the question is less about how accurate the North Korean missiles and nukes are, but rather whether they launch them in the first place. Nukes, and large quantities of missiles exploding on foreign soil is a statement enough, even if they do little damage to the opposing military. The impact, and even their launch, would be extremely damaging to the North's opponents domestically. Besides, a nuke does not need to be accurate to do what they do. If a nuke was shot down almost anywhere over the Straits of Japan, the radiation and blast would affect the Japanese and the South Koreans as well. Observe the effects of Chernobyl.

It also does not require a high level of technology to toss missiles over their Straits of Japan or over the 38th parallel. As Vekseid said, the sheer quantity of missiles would overload a missile shield.

However, I sincerely doubt that North Korea will really go ballistic. The use of the nuclear bargaining chip is a useful method to obtain aid and money from the international community, and the North is now posturing and saber rattling in a bid to regain attention. Even Kim and his generals, addled as they are, know that they cannot defeat an international response, and it is far more profitable for them to use their nukes as a way of dragging out more carrots from the international community.

Offline Vekseid

Re: North Korea
« Reply #36 on: May 25, 2010, 05:37:21 AM »
A shot down nuke isn't going to detonate - warheads are rather delicate constructions. There would be a desire to perform a recovery operation, but that would be about it. At that point it becomes a radiological bomb and those are merely weapons of terror - all they do is scare people. In order to generate fallout, you need the intense neutron bombardment performed by an actual nuclear detonation.

Chernobyl involved 180 metric tons of Uranium. North Korea isn't going to be able to get that amount of radioactive material airborne. With all due respect to the hundreds who suffered acute illness and the thirty-one who died, as disasters go, Chernobyl's political impact far outweighed its casualties.

Offline CountessJess

Re: North Korea
« Reply #37 on: May 25, 2010, 06:40:43 AM »
Well, I'm no expert in how nukes work, but wouldn't the less-than-stable construction of the North Korean missile likely result in the release of radioactive material into the environment, whether it is shot down or actually detonates normally? Please correct me if I'm wrong, as I said, I'm no expert in this.

Also, I'm not sure, but I believe that the effects of Chernobyl were felt in Sweden, enough to generate a scare throughout Europe. And neighbouring districts in Russia as well, if I'm not wrong. Though the West overreacted in their responsive measures, the point is that the scare of radiation in the Korean region would be enough to precipitate something far more serious than the situation might warrant, in the short run.

Offline Vekseid

Re: North Korea
« Reply #38 on: May 25, 2010, 08:52:08 AM »
Radioactive material is not some substance magically drawn the pit of Hell. We dig it out of the ground and refine it until it is concentrated enough to be reactor or weapons grade.

If it's concentrated enough to be a threat, it's concentrated enough to be easy to recover. If it's too dispersed to easily recover, it's not a threat.

And as I already mentioned, even a Chernobyl-magnitude incident (which wouldn't happen) would pale in comparison to the plight of millions of Koreans facing concentrated conventional bombardment from a fraction of a million artillery emplacements.

Offline WhiteyChan

Re: North Korea
« Reply #39 on: May 25, 2010, 11:07:52 AM »
Well, I'm no expert in how nukes work, but wouldn't the less-than-stable construction of the North Korean missile likely result in the release of radioactive material into the environment, whether it is shot down or actually detonates normally? Please correct me if I'm wrong, as I said, I'm no expert in this.

A nuclear bomb is detonated by an explosion - the force and pressure from an explosive substance surrounding the uranium compresses the uranium and triggers a critical reaction. The reaction then causes the gigantic explosion - its the same with a hydrogen bomb, except that the initial explosion is a standard uranium-based explosion. In theory then, if a nuclear missile is hit by say, another missile or an explosive shell, the impact and resulting explosion could have the same effect as the starting explosion would anyway, and the nuke would go off anyway. But, this is a small probability, given that its tricky enough to get it to detonate in a perfectly controlled scenario. And as Veks said, the nuclear radiation fallout only happens when a detonation occurs.

Also, NK has proven that they have the ability to fire conventional ballistics into the Pacific ocean on the far side of Japan - by implication, that means they can hit any target they like in Japan or South Korea with a hell storm of artillery.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: North Korea
« Reply #40 on: May 25, 2010, 11:45:31 AM »
NK has repeatedly made threats towards Japan, and like both myself and some others have pointed out there is a MASSIVE amount of cultural hatred towards Japan (and vice versa). The Japanese have gone as far as requiring 2nd or 3rd generation native born people of Korean descent to have 'internal passports'. There is a LOT of issues between these cultures.

The launch of missiles over Japan (both in the 90s and more recently) is a reminder that KJI can put a missile in Tokyo. I wouldn't bet against him doing just that if he thought he was going down or if he felt pushed into a corner by a massive international force moving against him.

That being said, I think the only people who have any leverage with him of any real scale are the Chinese. I know he listens to them. Crazy and delusional he might be, but he knows that he can't counter them. They are the ONLY military force involved that can really hurt him at this time (with outright nuking him)

Offline WhiteyChan

Re: North Korea
« Reply #41 on: May 25, 2010, 01:56:18 PM »
That being said, I think the only people who have any leverage with him of any real scale are the Chinese. I know he listens to them. Crazy and delusional he might be, but he knows that he can't counter them. They are the ONLY military force involved that can really hurt him at this time (with outright nuking him)

Very true. The Chinese are NK's biggest allies, if there is such a thing (more remaining neutral, I guess, than being allied, but that's about as good as it gets for NK). Not only that but, even without nukes, China is the only country with a big enough and dedicated enough military to wipe the floor with the DPRK military. The US doesn't have enough manpower, what with the dual wars being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan still (although if all hell breaks loose in Korea, I'd be willing to bet that the US gives up on one or both of them), and even combined with say, the UK, there would still be heavy, heavy casualties.

I think the best way to put pressure on North Korea is to put pressure on China.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: North Korea
« Reply #42 on: May 25, 2010, 02:25:30 PM »
Very true. The Chinese are NK's biggest allies, if there is such a thing (more remaining neutral, I guess, than being allied, but that's about as good as it gets for NK). Not only that but, even without nukes, China is the only country with a big enough and dedicated enough military to wipe the floor with the DPRK military. The US doesn't have enough manpower, what with the dual wars being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan still (although if all hell breaks loose in Korea, I'd be willing to bet that the US gives up on one or both of them), and even combined with say, the UK, there would still be heavy, heavy casualties.

I think the best way to put pressure on North Korea is to put pressure on China.

I think they have. The president (both President Obama and Bush) have sent people to China and then they came back to the table. Definitely not a coincidence. And I know that a while back some of the considerations they wanted from the US over trade issues were definitely offered.

Offline Phaia

Re: North Korea
« Reply #43 on: May 25, 2010, 04:11:49 PM »
If ya want something sobering and done for the military
read this

This study was done in 2007 before the second nuclear test by North Korea

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubid=771

the full study link : http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB771.pdf

A few things that caught me early on from this study

.."North Korea possesses at least enough plutonium to make a handful of nuclear bombs. Still, it is entirely possible that Pyongyang does not have a weapon."
   "The evidence from the October 9, 2006, underground explosion remains inconclusive, and the authors estimate that the DPRK has anywhere from zero to 13 nuclear weapons. North Korea has good reasons to play a game of “nuclear ambiguity.” Nevertheless, prudence demands that the United States and its allies proceed on the assumption that the DPRK has a nuclear weapon."


What is more concerning then Nuclear capabilty, which we in the US consider the main WMD< North korea has a large stock pile of chemical weapons.

"The DPRK perceives chemical agents more as an operational force multiplier, rather than as a strategic asset. Chemical weapons likely will be used at the outset of any conflict against frontline forces via artillery, against rear area targets on the peninsula via long-range artillery, short-range ballistic missiles, and via unconventional means with the assistance of SOF."

As for missles please realize that North Korea has been building and designing missles since the 1960s and sells them to many countries.

Remember this was from 2007 before the north fired off 7 cruise missiles:

"Currently, North Korea is thought to possess between 600 and 800 short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. This number is only likely to increase with steady output by the military industrial complex. And if testing continues, the DPRK eventually will produce and deploy long-range missiles capable of reaching Alaska, Hawaii, and some day, the continental United States."

So even with the patriot systems depolyed, which by the way has not proven that effective in Iraq. The shear numbers of missles could swamp South Korea and even cause major damage in Japan, even assuming poor accuraticy.

Do not think the way we took out Iraq would work on North Korea. Reading into the study I found this.

"After analyzing the 1991 Gulf War, North Korea increased its construction of underground facilities (command and control sites, logistics to include POL storage, military housing, and equipment such as artillery) to protect against the precision of U.S. weaponry allowing for the assembly of KPA military equipment and personnel in protected, underground facilities. Today, North Korea possesses as many as 10,000 such facilities."

"While ROK and U.S. analysts describe the KPA’s offensive strategy for a war of reunification as “blitzkrieg (lightning war), the KPA represents its “two-front war” and “combined operations” strategies somewhat differently. North Korea will use a massive attack across the DMZ, utilizing overwhelming firepower and violence known as a “One Blow Non-stop Attack.” Concurrent with this will be limited use of chemical weapons against targets within the forward area; ballistic missile strikes (some armed with chemical warheads) against ROK and U.S. airbases, ports, and C3I assets throughout the ROK; operations by hundreds of SOF units; offensive naval mine employment and intelligence agents throughout the ROK creating a “second front;” and special operations forces and intelligence agent attacks against U.S. bases in Japan and Okinawa."

I hope others, here, read this study.

Phaia

Offline Phaia

Re: North Korea
« Reply #44 on: May 25, 2010, 04:23:21 PM »


One of the conclusions of the study concerns me greatly!

"Reunification of the peninsula on North Korean terms remains the foremost strategic goal of the regime. North Korea’s severe and probably irreversible economic decline places the regime’s survival in question. Therefore, Kim Jong Il must see reunification on their terms not only as their historic purpose, but also as essential to regime survival (another stated strategic goal). Continued investment in a powerful military organized and deployed to execute an offensive military strategy, despite its drain on a failing economy, strongly suggests that North Korean leaders perceive the military as probably the only remaining instrument for realization of that goal."

I would bet that if Kim came to believe the only way he could stay in power was to attack then he would!!

Phaia

Offline Asuras

Re: North Korea
« Reply #45 on: May 25, 2010, 11:08:56 PM »
Quote from: Vekseid
Millions of lives would be put at immediate risk just from conventional bombardment by engaging hostilities, and the ABM systems currently deployed to South Korea and Japan are not currently capable of bringing down every conventional missile the Norks could launch.

Indeed. And in ten years the North will have ten or a hundred times as many warheads with far more accurate delivery systems with far longer ranges. So instead of tens of millions they will threaten billions of people.

Quote from: Vekseid
By the time North Korea manages to miniaturize its nukes enough to place them on a reliable missile, Japan and South Korea are going to have a lot more and significantly better missile defense systems.

And again the track record of even the most advanced ABM systems is decidedly mixed. In fact "mixed" is perhaps too highly a way of describing it.

Quote from: Vekseid
The 'US liberals' have not been able to stop us from providing five AEGIS ballistic defense systems to Japan.

Riiight...they also weren't able to stop Bush's tax cuts, that doesn't mean they were for it.

Quote from: Vekseid
They certainly weren't able to stop the PAC-3's 100% success rate.

Define success rate.

Quote from: Callie del Noire
The launch of missiles over Japan (both in the 90s and more recently) is a reminder that KJI can put a missile in Tokyo.

Yet he never actually bothered to land one there, though he has no problem torpedoing ROK naval vessels...



Offline Vekseid

Re: North Korea
« Reply #46 on: May 26, 2010, 12:33:42 AM »
Indeed. And in ten years the North will have ten or a hundred times as many warheads with far more accurate delivery systems with far longer ranges. So instead of tens of millions they will threaten billions of people.

No they won't. If you are talking about nuclear arms, they don't even have a working warhead yet. If you are talking about missiles, they're breaking their economy to support their currently ridiculous level of militarization.

Quote
And again the track record of even the most advanced ABM systems is decidedly mixed. In fact "mixed" is perhaps too highly a way of describing it.

Nine out of nine shot down in Operation Iraqi LiberationFreedom. Their track record for 1:1 kills against tests on more modern systems is poorer, yes, but
1) Expecting a 1:1 kill ratio is ludicrously stupid. Not just in terms of practicality, but when dealing with a nuclear or chemical warhead, it is economical to have 10:1 ratios.
2) North Korea does not have access to the latest, or best, missile technology. Its tech is a lot more like Iraq's in this regard.
3) ABM technology is demonstrably progressive faster than BM tech.
4) A single ballistic missile costs multiple orders of magnitude more than an ABM, after R&D is out of the way. It's easy to dismiss the amount of R&D we put into ballistic missiles in the first place when looking at this.

Quote
Define success rate.

Every missile Iraq fired in OIF was shot down. The ratio was around 2:1.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: North Korea
« Reply #47 on: May 26, 2010, 12:48:03 AM »
Indeed. And in ten years the North will have ten or a hundred times as many warheads with far more accurate delivery systems with far longer ranges. So instead of tens of millions they will threaten billions of people.

And again the track record of even the most advanced ABM systems is decidedly mixed. In fact "mixed" is perhaps too highly a way of describing it.

Riiight...they also weren't able to stop Bush's tax cuts, that doesn't mean they were for it.

Define success rate.

Yet he never actually bothered to land one there, though he has no problem torpedoing ROK naval vessels...

What do you suggest we do?

We don't have the ground forces in place to counter any offensive. Even if we did we don't have the MOPP gear to protect our forces (much less South Korea and Japan).

Reinstate the Draft, increase the size of our standing army by a factor of four or more? OH yeah, that will will go over like a ton of bricks.

And so long as he THREATENS but doesn't do.. he's walking that thing line that says he can be bought. Toss a missile over the Japan main islands.. he's hinting that he can be bought.. drop one in downtown Tokyo.. you've just pulled a 9/11 and the US/Japan won't come to the table till he's out of power.

He's a bandit king with modern weapons. He wants to get something from us, concessions, trade options and some form of empowerment. You show you CAN do something..the bigger power will negotiate. You DO IT.. they won't stop till you personally are dead, locked up but most assuredly out of power.

Offline Vekseid

Re: North Korea
« Reply #48 on: May 26, 2010, 01:00:16 AM »
If North Korea attacks the South would turn them into a fine paste and Kim knows it. America's role in such a scenario is primarily encouraging China not to escalate the situation.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: North Korea
« Reply #49 on: May 26, 2010, 01:06:36 AM »
If North Korea attacks the South would turn them into a fine paste and Kim knows it. America's role in such a scenario is primarily encouraging China not to escalate the situation.
That would be the final outcome yes. He can't support a rush like that without us hammering his infrastructure. But what would the civilian casualties be like? Not to mention our initial losses?  It would be nothing like we have seen since the Korean offensives of the fifties.