East, Southeast and South Asia News

DrRansom
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat 14 Jan 2012 18:22
Contact:

Re: East, Southeast and South Asia News

Postby DrRansom » Fri 16 Sep 2016 22:06

Podcast about the North Korean nuclear test:

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/ ... lear-test/

User avatar
Vulcan 607
Major-General
Posts: 3911
Joined: Mon 31 Mar 2014 20:40
Location: Malton
Contact:

Re: East, Southeast and South Asia News

Postby Vulcan 607 » Fri 16 Sep 2016 22:29


delfo
Major-General
Posts: 3735
Joined: Wed 6 Aug 2014 19:57
Contact:

Re: East, Southeast and South Asia News

Postby delfo » Sat 17 Sep 2016 00:07

DrRansom wrote:Podcast about the North Korean nuclear test:

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/ ... lear-test/



And he makes the point about people being biased towards making a bad decision and at the end delivers a bad decision talking about negotiation. There's actually nothing to negotiate in there, the key issue is their starting point in NK is we have nothing. They get any concessions from the opposing side it's positive reinforcement that this strategy works. And that it's their best way to make money period. It's a one industry state, that industry is extortion. Anything they receive in terms of payment for disarmament means when they eat through that they will go back to this. It's a proven pattern in their view after the 80s.



He also successfully argues against most of the things you say about NK that you keep bringing up.

He argues against them having missiles(with nuclear warheads ), he says they have hit another important milestone.

He points out one other thing, you're not seeing ground based systems that are useful for this being used but scud TELs.

He talks about a bunch of missiles attacking and overwhelming the THAAD defense, he does not mention that a bunch of missiles being fired at once would be pretty much all of the NK first strike. Not much left on the board given their prefered type, just SCUDs and SCUD derivatives. Remember that beyond SCUDs they have only a limited amount of launchers, single use ones at that.

He mentions the Sub. The sub is not viable. It has a crew of over 80 people, is monitored and holds a missile launching system all inside under 1500 tons. In any rougher sea it can't even travel, let alone fire.

He mentions that hitting TELs is hard and some people are skeptical based on Iraq. Fair, but NK isn't Iraq. NK has a fraction of the vehicles of Iraq and less buildings (communism architecture versus mid eastern one ) It has 1/4th the territory. And most of that territory is not just hard to pass through, it's impassible. During the rain season the amount of passable territory decreases drastically, offroad vehicles or not.

The last bit is that he goes into no detail to compare that there's a great amount of difference in terms of the development of sea based missiles ( which are also just prototypes, becasue the 2 this year had different engines ) and the ground based ones ( those are dead ends right now ) . And he doesn't examine that the submarine program itself is 3-5 years away from giving them a 4000 ton sub equivalent that can at least be harmful, not a sub that can't get out in a storm as things look right now. That was sufficiently disappointing. It's like having a Kim in the room ( volumetric equivalent of an Elephant in NK ) and ignoring it.


PS:

I found this:

http://defence-blog.com/army/russia-mul ... korea.html

I am guessing Russia wants them as spare parts or as new, ROK doesn't need these vehicles that much today and Russia can offer NK funds based in Moscow on a silver platter and force NK defectors. That's an interesting angle.

User avatar
Killertomato
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon 9 Jul 2012 02:46
Contact:

Re: East, Southeast and South Asia News

Postby Killertomato » Mon 19 Sep 2016 08:16

Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte to extend drug war as 'cannot kill them all'

I think I saw this movie sometime. Predator 2? Magnum Force?
orcbuster wrote:USSR gets prototype marsupials, why would you need moose when you got stuff with kickers like that AND transport capability? And I'm not even gonna START on the french Marsupilami, I don't even think thats a real animal! Why no trolls for Norway?

User avatar
Admiral Piett
Colonel
Posts: 2910
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 22:04
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: East, Southeast and South Asia News

Postby Admiral Piett » Mon 19 Sep 2016 08:42

What a nut-job. Even if you are going to go all extra-judicial and draconian, which is ill-advised to begin with, I wouldn't suggest offering "bounties" for turning in dead bodies with no more evidence than saying "he was totally a drug dealer, where is my money?"

User avatar
Grabbed_by_the_Spets
General
Posts: 6605
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2012 11:40
Contact:

Re: East, Southeast and South Asia News

Postby Grabbed_by_the_Spets » Mon 19 Sep 2016 11:42

But then again, who doesn't love a good witch hunt and genocide?
Image

delfo
Major-General
Posts: 3735
Joined: Wed 6 Aug 2014 19:57
Contact:

Re: East, Southeast and South Asia News

Postby delfo » Mon 19 Sep 2016 15:38

Grabbed_by_the_Spets wrote:But then again, who doesn't love a good witch hunt and genocide?


Usually the people being called witches without evidence.

User avatar
Mike
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12409
Joined: Thu 20 Feb 2014 01:09
Location: Virginia, United States of America
Contact:

Re: East, Southeast and South Asia News

Postby Mike » Mon 19 Sep 2016 16:10

Grabbed_by_the_Spets wrote:But then again, who doesn't love a good witch hunt and genocide?


Jews?
Image
Courtesy of KattiValk

DrRansom
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat 14 Jan 2012 18:22
Contact:

Re: East, Southeast and South Asia News

Postby DrRansom » Mon 19 Sep 2016 16:35

delfo, you seem to be really upset about this topic... But, let me get down to the specifics:

He also successfully argues against most of the things you say about NK that you keep bringing up.

He argues against them having missiles(with nuclear warheads ), he says they have hit another important milestone.


I think you are misunderstanding the author's point. He says they have hit the milestone of a demonstrated, standardized, miniaturized warhead. In a sense that's "another important milestone," but it is also THE important milestone. From here, the only thing preventing North Korea from deploying nuclear armed ballistic missiles is production rates (an issue the author also discusses...)

He points out one other thing, you're not seeing ground based systems that are useful for this being used but scud TELs.

He talks about a bunch of missiles attacking and overwhelming the THAAD defense, he does not mention that a bunch of missiles being fired at once would be pretty much all of the NK first strike. Not much left on the board given their prefered type, just SCUDs and SCUD derivatives. Remember that beyond SCUDs they have only a limited amount of launchers, single use ones at that.


I don't see how this is an issue? North Korea has developed a variety of SCUD modifications and, even if those aren't absolutely effective, North Korea will still possess a reasonably large SCUD force. According to US military is estimated to have <100 SCUD TELs and <50 Rodong TELs. Both of those have sufficient range to hit Seoul and should have a payload, ~1,000kg, large enough for a miniaturized nuclear weapon. A salvo of that many weapons would be enough to badly stress any missile defense system. (before we include any possible tactical options to defeat the missile defense, e.g. special forces infiltration, nuclear detonation to blind radar, etc.)

North Korea doesn't need to have enough systems to keep nuclear warfighting for a sustained period of time, it just needs enough to penetrate a missile defense before counter-force can succeed. Which brings me to this point:

He mentions that hitting TELs is hard and some people are skeptical based on Iraq. Fair, but NK isn't Iraq. NK has a fraction of the vehicles of Iraq and less buildings (communism architecture versus mid eastern one ) It has 1/4th the territory. And most of that territory is not just hard to pass through, it's impassible. During the rain season the amount of passable territory decreases drastically, offroad vehicles or not.


First, the surface area comparison is misleading, the Scud hunt was focused in Western Iraq, mainly west of Karbala, as only from that region could Scuds hit Israel. Also, Iraq had only a few dozen TELs operating in Western Iraq during the Scud hunt. There wasn't a ton more vehicles there.

Second, North Korea has had decades to build an entire road / tunnel / hide network to support deployment of mobile TELs. The broken terrain of North Korea helps them in this case. Hills give places for tunnels, pull outs, etc. This is US / RoK operating on terrain North Korea has had years to prepare. Impassible terrain could hide a tunnel system which TELs could reside before the launch order.

Again, the system doesn't have to survive weeks of air attack (though Saddam's did). The tunnel / dispersion network only has to survive long enough for North Korea to launch it's nuclear attack. Given the total lack of success in Iraq (where TELs hid in open desert / towns / scattered military installations), we have absolutely no reason to expect a successful counter-force strike in the time required to pre-empt a North Korean nuclear strike.

He mentions the Sub. The sub is not viable. It has a crew of over 80 people, is monitored and holds a missile launching system all inside under 1500 tons. In any rougher sea it can't even travel, let alone fire.

The last bit is that he goes into no detail to compare that there's a great amount of difference in terms of the development of sea based missiles ( which are also just prototypes, becasue the 2 this year had different engines ) and the ground based ones ( those are dead ends right now ) . And he doesn't examine that the submarine program itself is 3-5 years away from giving them a 4000 ton sub equivalent that can at least be harmful, not a sub that can't get out in a storm as things look right now. That was sufficiently disappointing. It's like having a Kim in the room ( volumetric equivalent of an Elephant in NK ) and ignoring it.


The sub represents a long-term threat, as it contains two technological improvements for North Korean deterrence. First, the missile is solid-fueled. Scuds have a pre-launch warning of ~90 minutes. Solid fueled would give North Koreans ability to launch basically right after the TEL pulls out of a tunnel. That is going to be nearly impossible to pre-empt.

Second, the submarine is a long-term strategy towards a second-strike capability. It isn't a problem now, but in 10 years, it will be. North Korea is putting all it's economic effort towards the nuclear program, I'd imagine that they'd try to develop a sub for the missile capability. In a sense, the sub doesn't need to have much range at all. All it needs to do is be able to hide long enough to evade a RoK and US first strike. If the sub can do that, then it can serve as a second-strike weapon. Extended deterrence is not so important in this case.

delfo
Major-General
Posts: 3735
Joined: Wed 6 Aug 2014 19:57
Contact:

Re: East, Southeast and South Asia News

Postby delfo » Mon 19 Sep 2016 17:35

DrRansom wrote:delfo, you seem to be really upset about this topic... But, let me get down to the specifics:


Because it's ignoring a few key things and you're bringing up the same points after extensive info as to why that's not happening. Like for example a comparative cost analysis of Iranian fisile material production ( the costs are astronomical ) during a NK submarine focus initiative.

From here, the only thing preventing North Korea from deploying nuclear armed ballistic missiles is production rates (an issue the author also discusses...)


There's been no re-entry testing of the warhead, not just testing the shielding of the warhead by reusing the a rocket engine. You can't jump from someone has never tested an actual warhead, has tested a form of a bomb and now he starts the production of warheads.


I don't see how this is an issue? North Korea has developed a variety of SCUD modifications and, even if those aren't absolutely effective, North Korea will still possess a reasonably large SCUD force. According to US military is estimated to have <100 SCUD TELs and <50 Rodong TELs. Both of those have sufficient range to hit Seoul and should have a payload, ~1,000kg, large enough for a miniaturized nuclear weapon. A salvo of that many weapons would be enough to badly stress any missile defense system. (before we include any possible tactical options to defeat the missile defense, e.g. special forces infiltration, nuclear detonation to blind radar, etc.)


Those are intercepted reliably by patriots, I am basing this on Yemen and Saudi Patriots. The launch sites for the bigger NK missiles based on the tests and the maps compiled appear to be around 3 stationary areas. Those are knocked out initially.




North Korea doesn't need to have enough systems to keep nuclear warfighting for a sustained period of time, it just needs enough to penetrate a missile defense before counter-force can succeed.


North Korea starves if it keeps the country in a war mobilization for more than 6 weeks. The escallation itself means death. They can't sustain themselves during that period.



First, the surface area comparison is misleading, the Scud hunt was focused in Western Iraq, mainly west of Karbala, as only from that region could Scuds hit Israel. Also, Iraq had only a few dozen TELs operating in Western Iraq during the Scud hunt. There wasn't a ton more vehicles there.

Second, North Korea has had decades to build an entire road / tunnel / hide network to support deployment of mobile TELs. The broken terrain of North Korea helps them in this case. Hills give places for tunnels, pull outs, etc. This is US / RoK operating on terrain North Korea has had years to prepare. Impassible terrain could hide a tunnel system which TELs could reside before the launch order.

Again, the system doesn't have to survive weeks of air attack (though Saddam's did). The tunnel / dispersion network only has to survive long enough for North Korea to launch it's nuclear attack. Given the total lack of success in Iraq (where TELs hid in open desert / towns / scattered military installations), we have absolutely no reason to expect a successful counter-force strike in the time required to pre-empt a North Korean nuclear strike.



This is from Oryx,

Image

And you have been told about the knowledge of the dug in facilities. They are not hidden. I don't understand why you bring weeks of attacks. NK's ground forces can't last if they get hit first for more than a couple of weeks before the country is overrun. Iraq wasn't being overrun at this pace during the scud hunt. It wasn't even invaded and it had a mostly intact command and control network. North Korea wouldn't have that 1 hour into the preliminary strike.

But again they have literally all the data from Iraq from 2003 and 1992. They are not further developing or expanding their ground missiles. They are focusing all their effort on a submarine variant.


The sub represents a long-term threat, as it contains two technological improvements for North Korean deterrence. First, the missile is solid-fueled. Scuds have a pre-launch warning of ~90 minutes. Solid fueled would give North Koreans ability to launch basically right after the TEL pulls out of a tunnel. That is going to be nearly impossible to pre-empt.

Second, the submarine is a long-term strategy towards a second-strike capability. It isn't a problem now, but in 10 years, it will be. North Korea is putting all it's economic effort towards the nuclear program, I'd imagine that they'd try to develop a sub for the missile capability. In a sense, the sub doesn't need to have much range at all. All it needs to do is be able to hide long enough to evade a RoK and US first strike. If the sub can do that, then it can serve as a second-strike weapon. Extended deterrence is not so important in this case.


There is no scenario in which NK launches 1st strike. All the other considerations are based on a second strike by NK. Parking what you have in known tunnel networks means you are going to sit the war out in the tunnel networks.


Secondly the sub is the only new missile that has been tested extensively. All other tech developments are a dead end. The only thing that was continued to a sufficient stage was the satelite launch ( I am going to guess guidance, which only makes sense from a sub based perspective ) . NK doesn't want to launch a first strike( because it ends with all of them dying ) and it doesn't expect to launch a ground based second strike with nearly enough to be a threat.

As to the missile on the sub, there have been 2 different missile engines used this year. The missile can't be used to launch a second strike or wait out in anything but calm seas. And that sub is being watched extensively.


Again one of the things that should be noted is an NBC war in Asia means a recession for all Asian economies. Not least because of the amount of shipping passing through ROK. Hence first strike by the little lump means that I am not sure if China will get to Pyongyang first or a UN force. Simply for that reason to restore a trade relation normality.

There's a thing he's doing by rocking the boat, he damages the economy slightly. He decides to tip over the boat, it stops being amusing or fun for everyone.

Here's an example of the economic implications when the company operating Busan gets into trouble:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/south-korea ... 1473002745

Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests