FWIS3

Because them's fi-tin words.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... mike-pence

Seriously?
Threatening a nuclear attack?
Have fun with that N.K.
Morons.

Well. Alrighty then. I wonder how long it would take for Australia to invade and conger NK if they were allowed to do it without interference? I know NK supposedly has a very large army. And there is no way it would just be NK VS AUS. First the UN would be groaning away. China would support NK. The U.S. would throw in with the Aussies. And the next thing you know we have WWIII on our hands. But, a guy can dream.

Oz and N.K have about the same population so a one on one war will end up more about tech than people.
I know Oz won't declare war on N.K. for a dumb comment and am pretty sure N.K isn't that retarded to launch a nuke over embargo's. If it did I doubt China would stand behind them. That would be the the nation equivalent of 911 in terms of the World uniting against a common foe.
The only way to fuck that up could be to do something completely stupid, like, say, blame Singapore and declare war on them and then state, "you're either with us or against us".
Hmm. Sounds surprisingly familiar. Though Trump is in so he might blame Mexico and say the same shit.

Basically if N.K pulled an unprovoked nuke attack it would be the end of N.K sovereignty. Retaliation would be quick and decisive. I imagine the US would launch very quickly based on the premise that N.K would assume the US would get involved thus possibly try a preemptive strike. Clearly one would need to have completely lost the plot to do that, but, we are working on the premise that they just nuked Oz over a petty dispute. I think the only thing that would stop N.K being made into a parking lot would be if China invaded them first and swiftly. Even that may not be enough.

Now K.K is threatening a US aircraft carrier: http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/23/politics/ ... us-drills/

When you're strong, act weak. When you're weak, act strong...

vendic wrote:Now K.K is threatening a US aircraft carrier: http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/23/politics/ ... us-drills/

When you're strong, act weak. When you're weak, act strong...

Indeed.

I wonder. I hear a lot of jingoistic responses to DPRK claims on social media, but most people don't know what they are capable of. I'm not sure how much even the intelligence agencies know. On Twitter and FB, everyone focuses on their missiles, forgetting nukes can be delivered via multiple methods, such as air drop, suicidal air initiation, car bomb, emplacement as a demolition (perhaps in a tower for an almost airburst), ship in a harbor or up a river, self-propelled torpedo, towed torpedo, sea mine, suicidal sub initiation. Have I missed any?

My concern is that they have or can smuggle nukes into cities around the world. Would Turnbull go along with the US if the DPRK has told them there is a nuke hidden in one or more Australian cities? Would he try to talk Trump out of an invasion due to such nuclear blackmail? The DPRK has historically infiltrated other countries to kidnap people, so it's not like they don't have the expertise for this. If the US attacks first, would Australians back US aggression? Might some see going to war over a DPRK missile test as hypocritical when the US also test-launched an ICBM this week?

As for the carrier, I'm not sure of carrier group doctrine and capabilities, so I can't say for sure if they'd detect a nearly motionless sea mine or electric sub sitting in front of them, near the surface or sitting on the bottom. But if the DPRK can predict their course and maneuvers, or have several subs or mines, they might possibly successfully drive the carrier group over it.

If they really want to get a nuke into a country, there is really no way to stop them.
I just think it would be suicide on NK's part to pull that stunt.

If the US did a pre-emptive strike, I have no clue if the Government of Australia would support them or not. Historically speaking, probably.

vendic wrote:If they really want to get a nuke into a country, there is really no way to stop them.
I just think it would be suicide on NK's part to pull that stunt.

If the US did a pre-emptive strike, I have no clue if the Government of Australia would support them or not. Historically speaking, probably.

There's the rub. It's really not that hard to get a "dirty bomb" or a full on nuke into a country. One of the deterrent factors is that virtually everyone with nukes has made it clear that if anyone does that they may exercise the prerogative to dust your country/region/ethnic group with a very large sized nuke retaliation.

Up until recent history only state actors had the resources and facilities to develop and use nukes. One of the uncertainties in current times is the fact that we have a number of failed state scenarios playing out. We also have a number of non-state hostile groups who may have gained access to radioactive materials if not nukes. And then we have North Korea. If the leadership there were the run of the mill megalomaniacs it wouldn't be a problem. But, we have a fairly malevolent regime put in power by China. Who helped them become a nuclear power. Who helped them keep the world distracted for the last 50+ years so China could further its' own goals. Who have had a very successful strategy of saying "Give us food, oil, medicines, and economic support" or we will do something very very very drastic". All while making incremental steps in their ability to deliver conventional and nuclear payloads further and further. They have gone from holding Seoul hostage to artillery to having Japan within 10 minutes of a ballistic missile strike. It's only a matter of time until they can reach almost anywhere in the world.

And then we have Trump in the WH. A preemptive strike almost sounds like a good idea. But, what are the secondary and tertiary effects going to be? The current administration has a track record of either not caring or not having a clue about secondary and tertiary effects. And that may wind up being a very very bad thing. Or we all might get lucky. Only history will tell us.

How evil do you think the DPRK is? I hear USA politicians using equivalent rhetoric against them and other countries. If the US were to use a nuke against DPRK first, which almost happened in the Korean War, would the world really blame DPRK for using one in response?

Tarragon wrote:How evil do you think the DPRK is? I hear USA politicians using equivalent rhetoric against them and other countries. If the US were to use a nuke against DPRK first, which almost happened in the Korean War, would the world really blame DPRK for using one in response?

Well, they are not adverse to starving millions of their own people and working them to death. We have some fairly good documentation of NK torturing people down through the years. And the current leader fires people by executing them with Anti-Aircraft guns. So, I am willing to say that on a scale of 1 to 10. With 10 being the most evil. The current regime in NK is probably about a 9 out of 10. It's hard to hit 10. Not everyone can be a Stalin.

As for the U.S. nuking them and them nuking us in response. I think the majority of the pro-democracy and some of the not so democratic countries would say NK did not have a right to retaliate. I base that on NK's track record with the rest of the world. They really don't have any friends currently. China, Iran, and maybe a couple of other countries willing to provide tacit support. Mostly on the basis of "We dictators must stick together". China primarily uses them as a buffer. The Korean war started primarily because China didn't like the U.S. or it's proxies being so close to their border. And because Russia really thought the U.S. wouldn't fight that hard to stop the annexation of South Korea.

Tarragon wrote:How evil do you think the DPRK is? I hear USA politicians using equivalent rhetoric against them and other countries. If the US were to use a nuke against DPRK first, which almost happened in the Korean War, would the world really blame DPRK for using one in response?

Very evil. On a scale of 0 -10, 9.5 evil. As Fisher says, the North Korean population has suffered and died in great numbers under the Kim dynasty. Sometimes I think the US and its allies have a moral obligation to invade the country and throw those bastards up against the wall. Then I remember that such endeavors rarely work out well.

As for first use of nuclear weapons, it depends on the scenario. If, for example, North Korea started an artillery barrage against Seoul, or started sinking South Korean or US or Japanese ships, or invaded South Korea, then yes, we'd be perfectly justified in using nuclear weapons against them. Not that we'd have to. I think the US still has an ample supply of Tomahawks (despite wasting 59 on Syria) and other distance ordnance to take on the North Korean military. Their navy would be toast.

Also, with respect to the vulnerability of the USS Carl Vinson to stealthy attacks by submarine or mine, it isn't that easy to sink a carrier. One or two torpedoes or mines won't do the job. North Korea might be able to disable it, but they'd have to be really fortunate to sink that ship. First, they'd have to find it. It's a big ocean and the carrier doesn't need to approach NK territorial waters to deploy its weaponry.

North Korea worries me. As mentioned, they don't even have to develop a reliable ballistic missile to deliver a warhead. Driving a suicide vessel into a port would do the job.

Yeah, my understanding of the situation (which included a really informative chat with the Pentagon-working BiL) is what people really spend time worrying about is the insane amount of artillery North Korea has, which no one's quite certain of in number but can certainly destroy a large chunk of South Korea, and now has some number of nuclear weapons. If you don't believe that NK would use all of it at once (and why would they) the trillion question then is how they deploy it, and do they ever get desperate enough to use the nuclear stuff.

Frankly the US has enough conventional weapons of their own that I find it unlikely that we would use nuclear weapons first when you've got stuff like the MOAB used a few weeks ago in Afghanistan- the potential effects of fallout in South Korea alone are not something I imagine anyone wants, but then, it's not the most rational and competent current administration.

Rommie wrote:Yeah, my understanding of the situation (which included a really informative chat with the Pentagon-working BiL) is what people really spend time worrying about is the insane amount of artillery North Korea has, which no one's quite certain of in number but can certainly destroy a large chunk of South Korea, and now has some number of nuclear weapons. If you don't believe that NK would use all of it at once (and why would they) the trillion question then is how they deploy it, and do they ever get desperate enough to use the nuclear stuff.

Frankly the US has enough conventional weapons of their own that I find it unlikely that we would use nuclear weapons first when you've got stuff like the MOAB used a few weeks ago in Afghanistan- the potential effects of fallout in South Korea alone are not something I imagine anyone wants, but then, it's not the most rational and competent current administration.

Here's a link to the Nautilus.org report about North Korea's ability to turn Seoul into a "sea of fire." (In case anyone hasn't read it yet.) The second paragraph sums it up.

“Mind the gap between rhetoric and reality”
by Roger Cavazos

If the North Korean Peoples Army (KPA) were to start a doctrinal, conventional artillery barrage focused on South Korean forces, we could expect to see around three thousand casualties in the first few minutes, but the casualty rate would quickly drop as the surprise wears off and counter-battery fires slow down the North Korean rates of fire. If the KPA were to engage Seoul in a primarily counter-value fashion by firing into Seoul instead of primarily aiming at military targets, there would likely be around thirty-thousand casualties in a short amount of time. Statistically speaking, almost eight-hundred of those casualties would be foreigners given Seoul’s international demographic. Chinese make up almost seventy percent of foreigners in Seoul and its northern environs which means KPA might also kill six-hundred Chinese diplomats, multi-national corporation leaders, and ranking cadre children who are students in Seoul. Horrible, but nothing approaching “millions”. Three primary factors and three secondary factors account for the huge discrepancy between rhetoric and reality:

It would be bad, but nothing approaching the rhetorical claims of the DPRK, and perhaps not approaching the casus belli needed to justify a nuclear response that would create fallout in South Korea, Japan, China and Russia - all of whom might be none too pleased about it.

I suspect the USA can't and won't use the MOAB against the DPRK. If my understanding is correct, it's so big that it can only be delivered from a slow, low flying unarmed cargo aircraft. The DPRK has a lot of air defenses that would chew it up.

SciFiFisher wrote:

Tarragon wrote:How evil do you think the DPRK is? I hear USA politicians using equivalent rhetoric against them and other countries. If the US were to use a nuke against DPRK first, which almost happened in the Korean War, would the world really blame DPRK for using one in response?

Well, they are not adverse to starving millions of their own people and working them to death. We have some fairly good documentation of NK torturing people down through the years. And the current leader fires people by executing them with Anti-Aircraft guns. So, I am willing to say that on a scale of 1 to 10. With 10 being the most evil. The current regime in NK is probably about a 9 out of 10. It's hard to hit 10. Not everyone can be a Stalin.

As for the U.S. nuking them and them nuking us in response. I think the majority of the pro-democracy and some of the not so democratic countries would say NK did not have a right to retaliate. I base that on NK's track record with the rest of the world. They really don't have any friends currently. China, Iran, and maybe a couple of other countries willing to provide tacit support. Mostly on the basis of "We dictators must stick together". China primarily uses them as a buffer. The Korean war started primarily because China didn't like the U.S. or it's proxies being so close to their border. And because Russia really thought the U.S. wouldn't fight that hard to stop the annexation of South Korea.

My reading suggests the famines in the mid 90s were caused by floods damaging crops and granaries, and the dissolution of the USSR, which had sent them food. The arable land in the DPRK isn't enough to support them, which is mismanagement of a different type, but a lot of westerners balk at calling over-population "evil". I know there have been claims of diverting food to elites and to the military, which are probably true, but that's not abnormal on this planet - especially when they are in a state of war, which they consider themselves to be.

The Korean War, from my reading, started because Kim Il-Sung wanted to reunify Korea, and because President Syngman Rhee in the ROK (South Korea) was frequently recorded saying he wanted to conquer the north and was killing tens of thousands of Korean protesters who didn't want elections because it would reinforce the partition of their country instead of working toward unification as they had been promised, and they were tired of being occupied by foreign powers (Japan, then the USA in the south). Of course, this depends on which version of history one subscribes to: whether the war was an annexation or a civil war, which would have been considered an internal matter by the UN (if they hadn't decided to violate their own rules, according to some). Remember, the whole North Korea vs. The World thing isn't new, the world literally ganged up on them by creating an armed force under the UN flag (though lawyers will argue the UN itself wasn't technically a belligerent). To bring it back to the topic, the Australians were one of the first foreign armed forces to see combat in Korea.

Not that I agree with the motivations of Kim Il-Sung or his descendants. But I think it useful to consider possible real motivations instead of attributing it to "evil". If we can understand their motivations, we can better anticipate their actions, possibly finding ways to avoid conflict and nuclear war.

geonuc wrote:

Tarragon wrote:How evil do you think the DPRK is? I hear USA politicians using equivalent rhetoric against them and other countries. If the US were to use a nuke against DPRK first, which almost happened in the Korean War, would the world really blame DPRK for using one in response?

Very evil. On a scale of 0 -10, 9.5 evil. As Fisher says, the North Korean population has suffered and died in great numbers under the Kim dynasty. Sometimes I think the US and its allies have a moral obligation to invade the country and throw those bastards up against the wall. Then I remember that such endeavors rarely work out well.

As for first use of nuclear weapons, it depends on the scenario. If, for example, North Korea started an artillery barrage against Seoul, or started sinking South Korean or US or Japanese ships, or invaded South Korea, then yes, we'd be perfectly justified in using nuclear weapons against them. Not that we'd have to. I think the US still has an ample supply of Tomahawks (despite wasting 59 on Syria) and other distance ordnance to take on the North Korean military. Their navy would be toast.

Also, with respect to the vulnerability of the USS Carl Vinson to stealthy attacks by submarine or mine, it isn't that easy to sink a carrier. One or two torpedoes or mines won't do the job. North Korea might be able to disable it, but they'd have to be really fortunate to sink that ship. First, they'd have to find it. It's a big ocean and the carrier doesn't need to approach NK territorial waters to deploy its weaponry.

North Korea worries me. As mentioned, they don't even have to develop a reliable ballistic missile to deliver a warhead. Driving a suicide vessel into a port would do the job.

How exactly do you justify a nuclear attack in response for a conventional attack?

I'd be curious to see how Tomahawks fare against their air defenses.

I know they have a brown-water navy, but I don't know how far out their newer littoral subs or ye olde Romeos can range (doctrinally, speaking). I was referring to a nuclear torpedo of some sort, probably a special towed version since I wonder if they'd trust their technical ability enough to fit it into a self-propelled torpedo. Then, they'd only have to get within a half mile or so, depending on yield. But I'm not sure how much data from Operation Crossroads can be applied due to newer ship design.

A port nuke would be the worst kind of dirty bomb, as you probably know, but others might not. Not only would you get damaged port infrastructure and damaged ships, but It would paint everything within several miles radius with an invisible, sticky cloud of death. The sodium in the seawater would be transmuted into radioactive sodium-24 with a 15-hour halflife (not to mention other reaction products and toxic, unreacted plutonium). Well, I suppose there are worse types of dirty bombs, like the salted variety, but this might be easier to claim as incidental instead of intentional, for what it's worth on the international stage (probably not much).

Tarragon wrote:How exactly do you justify a nuclear attack in response for a conventional attack?

I'd be curious to see how Tomahawks fare against their air defenses.

I know they have a brown-water navy, but I don't know how far out their newer littoral subs or ye olde Romeos can range (doctrinally, speaking). I was referring to a nuclear torpedo of some sort, probably a special towed version since I wonder if they'd trust their technical ability enough to fit it into a self-propelled torpedo. Then, they'd only have to get within a half mile or so, depending on yield. But I'm not sure how much data from Operation Crossroads can be applied due to newer ship design.

A port nuke would be the worst kind of dirty bomb, as you probably know, but others might not. Not only would you get damaged port infrastructure and damaged ships, but It would paint everything within several miles radius with an invisible, sticky cloud of death. The sodium in the seawater would be transmuted into radioactive sodium-24 with a 15-hour halflife (not to mention other reaction products and toxic, unreacted plutonium). Well, I suppose there are worse types of dirty bombs, like the salted variety, but this might be easier to claim as incidental instead of intentional, for what it's worth on the international stage (probably not much).

How do you justify a nuclear strike? Necessity. If North Korea is causing grave damage or is in position to overrun South Korea, you use what weaponry you must. Of course, there are political as well as strategic military considerations to using nuclear weapons instead of conventional. Mind you, I don't advocate using nuclear weapons. I'm just saying it could be justified under certain circumstances.

I don't think North Korea has any air defenses that could shoot down a significant number of Tomahawks, if any. Even Russia would have a hard time with Tomahawks. They are low-flying and have very small radar cross-secions. The US has other varieties of cruise missile, as well.

I don't think North Korea has a nuclear torpedo or is remotely close to having one. Not sure how they would tow a nuclear weapon close to a carrier, much less set it off.

geonuc wrote:How do you justify a nuclear strike? Necessity. If North Korea is causing grave damage or is in position to overrun South Korea, you use what weaponry you must. Of course, there are political as well as strategic military considerations to using nuclear weapons instead of conventional. Mind you, I don't advocate using nuclear weapons. I'm just saying it could be justified under certain circumstances.

I don't think North Korea has any air defenses that could shoot down a significant number of Tomahawks, if any. Even Russia would have a hard time with Tomahawks. They are low-flying and have very small radar cross-secions. The US has other varieties of cruise missile, as well.

I don't think North Korea has a nuclear torpedo or is remotely close to having one. Not sure how they would tow a nuclear weapon close to a carrier, much less set it off.

Perhaps it depends on what you mean by "justify", do you mean satisfying your own cognitive dissonance or that of the general US public, satisfying present US law, satisfying international law, satisfying the qualms that might be held by allies, satisfying the qualms of un-involved countries, or satisfying the qualms of adversaries who might perceive it as an escalation and casus belli? Based on the Nautilus report (and others by them), the use of nuclear weapons is not warranted because conventional counterforce capabilities are presumed to be at least as adequate, sometimes better, and have fewer risks of escalation. Precision munitions delivery is claimed to have gotten even better since that study (2011) and the previous study they based some of their tactical analysis on (from the 1970s, IIRC).

My understanding is NATO planned to use nukes in Europe to counter Warsaw Pact armored concentrations. However, that is a tactical use. There might be a similar scenario on the Korean Peninsula if the DPRK were to invade. However, an artillery barrage is unlikely to be stopped by a nuclear attack. The hardened artillery positions are relatively protected, both individually and by general mountainous terrain, meaning a nuclear response necessary to stop the shelling would require tens to hundreds of nuclear explosions. Meanwhile, the fallout might kill more south Koreans than enemy artillery fire. A strategic use well beyond the DMZ, attempting to kill DPRK leadership might work with fewer strikes, but it might kill a lot of north Korean civilians and be seen as an escalation to counter-value nuclear warfare.

I don't know how easy or hard it is to shoot down a Tomahawk. One was apparently shot down in the Balkan conflicts. There are claims that dozens were shot down in Syria recently, though I have no idea if that's true or not. North Korea is assumed to have good, if not cutting edge, air defenses. I don't think we've used any against Russia, so that might just be speculation. I'm not making an assumption, I'm legitimately curious.

As for a nuclear attack on the carrier, it would depend on doctrine. If they are blasting away on active sonar to look for a mine or sub, it might be harder to attack, although it might be easier to locate and track them for an attempt. If the carrier task force relies on passive sonar, then a quiet sub or mine might go undetected until too late. Also factoring in is how many airborne ASW assets they use and where. The Sea of Japan is fairly deep, so bottom mines might not work and subs wouldn't be able to bottom out.

However, military history suggests that forces can be manipulated into deploying in a manner that allows a secretive attack to work. If a DPRK sub goes active in one location, or they launch a bomber sortie or a ballistic missile toward the carrier group, it might maneuver in a way that could be anticipated (e.g. turning into the wind). Or they might attack in the straits between Japan and the mainland when the carrier task force is passing through the constriction. Or maybe they could attack it during a port visit.

I have no good answer to clarify the term 'justify' except that I mean all of that.

Any time we use cruise missiles against a country whose weaponry is supplied by Russia, we are essentially testing Russian weapons to some degree depending on modernity. Syria uses Russian air defense systems, for example.

Carrier task forces use a variety of anti-submarine measures, including active sonar. The destroyers and frigates don't worry so much about stealth. The nuclear attack submarines operating with the group will rely almost exclusively on passive sonar.

geonuc wrote:I have no good answer to clarify the term 'justify' except that I mean all of that.

Any time we use cruise missiles against a country whose weaponry is supplied by Russia, we are essentially testing Russian weapons to some degree depending on modernity. Syria uses Russian air defense systems, for example.

Carrier task forces use a variety of anti-submarine measures, including active sonar. The destroyers and frigates don't worry so much about stealth. The nuclear attack submarines operating with the group will rely almost exclusively on passive sonar.

I saw some headlines from less-than-reputable sites claiming a large percentage of the Tomahawks were shot down by Syria and/or Russia. Have you heard anything like that?

Tarragon wrote:

geonuc wrote:I have no good answer to clarify the term 'justify' except that I mean all of that.

Any time we use cruise missiles against a country whose weaponry is supplied by Russia, we are essentially testing Russian weapons to some degree depending on modernity. Syria uses Russian air defense systems, for example.

Carrier task forces use a variety of anti-submarine measures, including active sonar. The destroyers and frigates don't worry so much about stealth. The nuclear attack submarines operating with the group will rely almost exclusively on passive sonar.

I saw some headlines from less-than-reputable sites claiming a large percentage of the Tomahawks were shot down by Syria and/or Russia. Have you heard anything like that?

I haven't read anything credible along those lines.