I’m quite torn on this one.
On one hand, attacking them could be construed as self-defense.
On the other, aren’t you just beating up that retarded kid who was talking shit on the playground?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]NikH wrote:
Their newest leader Kim Jong-un isn’t very liked, and people still have pictures having of the old leader, his father, but not of him.
I would think this is just political bs to bring the nation together under one leader, Kim Jong-un.
I dont think, and I hope, it will not be anything more.[/quote]
That’s the thing, I am weary of complacency. Bin Laden declared war on the U.S. several dozen times and we just laughed it off like he was just another toothless kook with big words an no balls.
NK has done this like 1000 times, it only takes one time for them to be serious to cause a really big shit storm. I don’t want to be caught off guard again. [/quote]
I think we are taking the situation very seriously, and rightfully so. UBL and Al Qaeda were non state actors who didn’t possess nuclear capabilities. Radical Islam fights a hopeless war against globalization that it cannot hope to win.
North Korea maintains one of the world’s largest standing armies and militarism pervades everyday life. A total of 9,495,000 active, reserve and paramilitary personnel are currently enlisted in the army. The Korean People’s Army operates a very large amount of equipment, including 4,060 tanks, 2,500 APCs, 17,900 artillery pieces, 11,000 air defense guns and some 10,000 MANPADS and anti-tank guided missiles in the Ground force.
There are at least 915 vessels in the Navy and 1,748 aircraft in the Air Force. North Korea also has the largest Special Forces in the world, as well as the largest submarine fleet.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Only part they need is to be able to get the rocket path right, and to detonate the warhead at the optimal height…
[/quote]
Which requires an absurdly smart guidance system that relies on stars (yes fucking stars millions of miles away) to position itself perfectly…
AND release the warhead at the right spot in outer space
AND make sure the warhead is able to re-enter the earth’s atmosphere without disintegrating
AND make sure the warhead free falls to its right location
AND make sure the warhead denoates at the right spot to be effective
There is a reason there are only a handful of countries with this technology…it isn’t all that simple.
Edit: This all assumes that they manage to get the launch off without us intercepting the rocket on liftoff or the warheads on reentry…[/quote]
This.
They aren’t close to being able to strike us yet, according to the experts.
Therefore all of this bluster is probably best explained through the prism of domestic politics.
But that doesn’t make it something to be laughed off.[/quote]
Again who are these so called experts and what assumptions are they basing their opinions on? One assumption they are making that could prove to be seriously wrong is where North Korean or Iranian missiles could reach. I covered this subject several years ago but obviously I am going to have to repeat it.
The Iranians have been known to have tested launching Skud missiles off of a barge in the Caspian sea several years ago. So in reality the Koreans could have the ability to stand off over a thousand miles from the US coast and hit anywhere in the US. Right now.
Another false assumption is that celestial guidance is needed. Just because that is what the US uses it doesn’t mean that the Koreans or anyone else couldn’t use something less advanced that will still get the job done. Inertial guidance can be quite accurate. Eighties vintage Trident 2 missiles had an accuracy of within 100 meters using inertial guidance.
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - Google Books
I don’t know where you’re getting your information but what you call “80’s vintage Trident II missiles” absolutely have celestial guidance. They are still deployed today with the same systems they were built with back then. It was actually early 90’s when it was first deployed, but I won’t split hairs here.
[/quote]
If you read the link I posted it said that Trident 2 D5 uses inertial guidance. Again if you read the link it says who the author is, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Here is who they are. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - Wikipedia
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is a nontechnical online magazine that covers global security and public policy issues, especially related to the dangers posed by nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. It has been published continuously since 1945, when it was founded by former Manhattan Project physicists after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists of Chicago. The Bulletin’s primary aim is to inform the public about nuclear policy debates while advocating for the international control of nuclear weapons.
I would think that they are a fairly reputable source on this subject matter, but I guess I could be wrong.
Since no one else has posted this yet, this latest revelation about North Korea shows just how much the threat from them is being down played. As I have repeatedly told you so, do no underestimate them, they could be full of surprises and we are not being told the full story by the so called experts.
The new American intelligence analysis, disclosed Thursday at a hearing on Capitol Hill, says the Pentagon?s intelligence wing has ?moderate confidence? that North Korea has nuclear weapons capable of delivery by ballistic missiles but that the weapon was unreliable.
Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., read aloud what he said was an unclassified paragraph from a secret Defense Intelligence Agency report that was supplied to some members of Congress. The reading seemed to take Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by surprise, who said he hadn?t seen the report and declined to answer questions about it.
Oh and another thing. The North Korean Musudan missile which is downplayed because it “only” has a 2500 mile range is based upon the old soviet R-27 which was a ship launched ballistic missile.
http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_1/Diverse/R-27/
My point is don’t underestimate the NK’s and don’t think that our government is being up front with the American people about the threat. That disclosure was accidental.
While I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment that the U.S. shouldn’t underestimate the DPRK, The Blaze is hardly a source for in depth analysis of Foreign Policy.
Consider the author’s recent body of work. “Watch: Gorilla Vs. Goose,” "This Is Just a Video of a Woodchuck Eating and Thoroughly Enjoying an Ice Cream Cone “Jay-Z Finds Himself in Rap Battle With Fox News Host. Seriously, Listen to This Funky Fresh Rap,” and “Who Is Better at Shooting Hoops, Glenn Beck or Obama? Here?s Your Side-by-Side Comparison” are hardly serious pieces of journalism.
Is this infotainment so much better than the MSLM that conservatives loath? Please note that I’m not intending to come across as an asshole, I just find it inconsistent that you lambast subject matter experts and have the intellectual curiosity to study ballistic missile systems while not applying the same rigor to an article written by such a dreadfully unqualified and partisan publication.
Also, why are the American people entitled to full disclosure regarding the situation in East Asia? Most Americans were wholly ignorant of the DPRK until recent events brought their apathy toward International Relations above a low simmer. The Realism you espouse directly conflicts with the belief that government is somehow obligated to make its concerns and ambitions in the International System known to the everyday citizen.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Since no one else has posted this yet, this latest revelation about North Korea shows just how much the threat from them is being down played. As I have repeatedly told you so, do no underestimate them, they could be full of surprises and we are not being told the full story by the so called experts.
The new American intelligence analysis, disclosed Thursday at a hearing on Capitol Hill, says the Pentagon?s intelligence wing has ?moderate confidence? that North Korea has nuclear weapons capable of delivery by ballistic missiles but that the weapon was unreliable.
Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., read aloud what he said was an unclassified paragraph from a secret Defense Intelligence Agency report that was supplied to some members of Congress. The reading seemed to take Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by surprise, who said he hadn?t seen the report and declined to answer questions about it.
Oh and another thing. The North Korean Musudan missile which is downplayed because it “only” has a 2500 mile range is based upon the old soviet R-27 which was a ship launched ballistic missile.
http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_1/Diverse/R-27/
My point is don’t underestimate the NK’s and don’t think that our government is being up front with the American people about the threat. That disclosure was accidental. [/quote]
Yep, when I saw this story break I thought of this thread. I would no longer stand by the claim that experts think NK is far away from real strike capability. However, at the time that I said it, it was true so far as anybody without a security clearance knew.
Anyway, good call. Do you work in FP or security?
Edit: This isn’t a good post for me to put here.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
If you read the link I posted it said that Trident 2 D5 uses inertial guidance. Again if you read the link it says who the author is, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Here is who they are. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - Wikipedia
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is a nontechnical online magazine that covers global security and public policy issues, especially related to the dangers posed by nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. It has been published continuously since 1945, when it was founded by former Manhattan Project physicists after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists of Chicago. The Bulletin’s primary aim is to inform the public about nuclear policy debates while advocating for the international control of nuclear weapons.
I would think that they are a fairly reputable source on this subject matter, but[u] I guess I could be wrong.[/u] [/quote]
Well, we certainly agree on your last sentence. I would agree with everything else you wrote, but then we’d both be wrong.
It’s adorable that this is your little hobby and all, but it’s pretty clear that you don’t really understand what you’re reading if the thought that TRIDENT II may utilize both celestial AND inertial guidance systems never crossed your mind. Because that is the case.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
While I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment that the U.S. shouldn’t underestimate the DPRK, The Blaze is hardly a source for in depth analysis of Foreign Policy.
Consider the author’s recent body of work. “Watch: Gorilla Vs. Goose,” "This Is Just a Video of a Woodchuck Eating and Thoroughly Enjoying an Ice Cream Cone “Jay-Z Finds Himself in Rap Battle With Fox News Host. Seriously, Listen to This Funky Fresh Rap,” and “Who Is Better at Shooting Hoops, Glenn Beck or Obama? Here?s Your Side-by-Side Comparison” are hardly serious pieces of journalism.
Is this infotainment so much better than the MSLM that conservatives loath? Please note that I’m not intending to come across as an asshole, I just find it inconsistent that you lambast subject matter experts and have the intellectual curiosity to study ballistic missile systems while not applying the same rigor to an article written by such a dreadfully unqualified and partisan publication.
Also, why are the American people entitled to full disclosure regarding the situation in East Asia? Most Americans were wholly ignorant of the DPRK until recent events brought their apathy toward International Relations above a low simmer. The Realism you espouse directly conflicts with the belief that government is somehow obligated to make its concerns and ambitions in the International System known to the everyday citizen.[/quote]
I had seen a version of the article on several news sources actually. The blaze just happened to be the one I was on when I got the motivation to post it. Since no one else had done so.
I think your criticism is a little unfair. The Blaze hasn’t been around a long time, so it’s not like all of it’s reporters have had a lot of opportunity to publish really meaty stories. Besides some of the stories you referred to were tongue in cheek and taking a poke at the fluff that gets posted in other news outlets.
For example I can still remember twenty plus years ago when the most pressing issue of the day was whether candidate Clinton wore boxers or briefs and people thought it was cute. The question I would have asked him is “hey douchebag are you willing to go as far as using the military to stop the North Koreans from developing nukes”? or how about “Douchebag will you control the lunatic fringe of your party so they don’t interfere with stopping the NK bomb program”? Like Jimmy Carter did.
The American people are entitled to full disclosure of just how close the NK’s really are to being able to nuke us because this is a fucking democracy. Otherwise how can we know who to vote for come election time when we are being lied to about our leaders job performance. The North Koreans would not have nuclear weapons and be threatening us with them today if the democrats hadn’t screwed the pooch back in the nineties.
This current crisis is a major, Democrat led, fuck up. What they are doing right now is damage control so their image doesn’t take the hit it should. There was a time when no one thought to threaten America like the NK’s have. Not even the Soviets were that belligerent and bellicose.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
If you read the link I posted it said that Trident 2 D5 uses inertial guidance. Again if you read the link it says who the author is, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Here is who they are. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - Wikipedia
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is a nontechnical online magazine that covers global security and public policy issues, especially related to the dangers posed by nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. It has been published continuously since 1945, when it was founded by former Manhattan Project physicists after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists of Chicago. The Bulletin’s primary aim is to inform the public about nuclear policy debates while advocating for the international control of nuclear weapons.
I would think that they are a fairly reputable source on this subject matter, but[u] I guess I could be wrong.[/u] [/quote]
Well, we certainly agree on your last sentence. I would agree with everything else you wrote, but then we’d both be wrong.
It’s adorable that this is your little hobby and all, but it’s pretty clear that you don’t really understand what you’re reading if the thought that TRIDENT II may utilize both celestial AND inertial guidance systems never crossed your mind. Because that is the case.
[/quote]
I can see you are having trouble grasping simple concepts. Newer vintage missiles use celestial guidance. Why? Because that is state of the art. Today. But before that up until the mid eighties they used inertial guidance which is good enough for horseshoes and nuclear weapons.
Just because inertial guidance isn’t the latest, greatest, high tech, state of the art, cutting edge, technology that the US of A uses, it does not in any way mean that it couldn’t get the job done back in it’s day. Just because the US has moved on to something that has an accuracy of meters instead of kilometers there is no rule that says everyone else now must use what the US uses or it’s not allowed to make weapons.
Deploying a city busting bomb against a sprawling city like Los Angeles does not require the same level of accuracy as taking out a small, individual, military target, like a missile silo. With a nuclear weapon, hitting a mile or two away from the business district instead of a bulls eye would still be devastating.
Because you don’t have to be all that accurate to use nukes against civilian targets. If you can’t grasp that concept now that I have taken the time to explain it to you, then you are a fucking retard.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
I can see you are having trouble grasping simple concepts. Newer vintage missiles use celestial guidance. Why? Because that is state of the art. Today. But before that up until the mid eighties they used inertial guidance which is good enough for horseshoes and nuclear weapons.
Just because inertial guidance isn’t the latest, greatest, high tech, state of the art, cutting edge, technology that the US of A uses, it does not in any way mean that it couldn’t get the job done back in it’s day. Just because the US has moved on to something that has an accuracy of meters instead of kilometers there is no rule that says everyone else now must use what the US uses or it’s not allowed to make weapons.
Deploying a city busting bomb against a sprawling city like Los Angeles does not require the same level of accuracy as taking out a small, individual, military target, like a missile silo. With a nuclear weapon, hitting a mile or two away from the business district instead of a bulls eye would still be devastating.
Because you don’t have to be all that accurate to use nukes against civilian targets. If you can’t grasp that concept now that I have taken the time to explain it to you, then you are a fucking retard. [/quote]
I’m from the South, and we have a saying down here that’s appropriate for such situations: “Bless your little heart”. You are welcome to go off and search that if you are bored.
But before you do that, can you tell me what “newer vintage” means? LOL
You have portrayed celestial guidance as ‘state of the art’ and ‘only in-use since the mid 80’s’. That’s funny, because celestial guidance was used on the Polaris Missile (which was the 5 generation precursor to the TRIDENT II D5 which you also seem to know little about other than a quick google scan) when it was built in 1957.
<edit: removed personal info>
Here it is for reference if you would care to go look:
NEW TECHNOLOGY FOR CELESTIAL NAVIGATION (requires using the CTL + F feature of your keyboard…keyword: Polaris)
or
That was in 1957. Now, remind me again. Maybe I’m just a “fucking retard”, or maybe I’ve run out of fingers and toes to count it on, but wasn’t 1957 prior to the mid 80’s? Gee willackers…And would something that was bult in 1957 not really be considered ‘state of the art’? Holy smokes…And would a normal rational person that does not confuse his ass and his elbow recognize that is not really ‘todays’ technology? Hrmmm…help me out here Sifu…Or maybe someone reading along? I just can’t remember if 1957 came WAYY before mid 1980’s or not…shucks…I just can’t remember…
Not only that, but the Polaris wasn’t even the first missile to use celestial guidance. Apparently it was the American Snark missile in 1953 (3 comes before 7 right?). Now that only took me about 5 eye blinks, 2 breathes, and 30 seconds of my time. Why weren’t you able to do that before coming in here trying to tell me about celestial guidance?
Edited: personal info
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I’m quite torn on this one.
On one hand, attacking them could be construed as self-defense.
On the other, aren’t you just beating up that retarded kid who was talking shit on the playground?[/quote]
You mean the retarded kid with one of the largest armies in the world, nuclear missiles, a crazy personality cult and penchant for threatening to annihilate their neighbours and the US on a regular basis? That kid?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I’m quite torn on this one.
On one hand, attacking them could be construed as self-defense.
On the other, aren’t you just beating up that retarded kid who was talking shit on the playground?[/quote]
You mean the retarded kid with one of the largest armies in the world, nuclear missiles, a crazy personality cult and penchant for threatening to annihilate their neighbours and the US on a regular basis? That kid?[/quote]
Hey, I didn’t say you couldn’t take away his toys.
Time to dust off this thread
This appears to be a largest and sooner challenge than nukes in Iran.
Not only test nuclear, but missiles, miniaturization to actually be a warhead, belligerence, and state secrecy.
Yeah, for all the trouble Iran has caused I believe N. Korea infinitely more likely to use some sort of nuclear weapon. The Kim is far more unbalanced than the leadership of Iran. Besides which Iran is struggling against its citizens discontent…NK has pretty much crushed their citizens into silence.
@smh_23 often speaks of US Middle East ‘publicity convert’ activities carried out to quietly strangle ISIS or overt moves to keep Syria and Iran in check.
Sure a couple of B1s flew over the border last week, but I can’t seem to see what we are doing in regards to N Korea to take away their actual nuclear weaponization.
I would be interested if any could direct to a deeper read.
(I’m no expert on N. Korea – what I know simply comes from what I happen to read in the papers and journals. Still, here are some quick thoughts and two articles I remember reading not too long ago. Sorry in advance for grammar and whatnot. I’m on a goddamn train that hasn’t moved for two hours.)
Part of the problem is that if you’re trying to take nuclear weapons away from a country, you’re by definition dealing with a nuclear weapons state. It’s a whole different ball game, very difficult, and one we don’t even seem interested in attempting to play. “Strategic patience” is what they’re calling it. But the regime should have collapsed a long time ago: it didn’t, and it isn’t clear to me that it’s going to any time soon. Diplomacy is tougher than it is with just about any other nation, and the other alternatives are even grimmer. From memory, so check if skeptical: Clinton, who was considering a strike, was warned in '94 that the war would cost scores of thousands of American lives. Now they have the bomb, and nobody in Seoul wants to trust that we’d be able to strike every last one and/or that 100 percent of the remaining warheads would end up flopping into the sea rather than erupting overhead. In all it is a dangerous, almost-no-win situation, and if I lived in the region it would not leave the back of my mind. I bet @Chushin has some very interesting insight.
These articles came to my mind. They are ostensibly about the Iran deal but they are really just primers on the clusterfuck that is the DPRK.
Thanks. About to give these a quick look before I hit the hay.
How about it @Chushin - what is being discussed in Japan concerning N Korea?
One thing that no one online ever seems to consider is that N. Korea technically already has enough conventional weaponry at its disposal to devastate Seoul.
The metropolitan area of Seoul is the metaphorical heart of S.Korea, and N.Korea can likely gut the place if they go for a genuine attack with the sole goal of mutual suicide.
Destroy Seoul and its surrounding regions, and S.Korea ceases to be a meaningful economic power for some time.