Missiles of North Korea(missilethreat.csis.org)
missilethreat.csis.org
Missiles of North Korea
https://missilethreat.csis.org/country/dprk/
73 comments
I walked into an NK submarine from 20 years ago. I was not impressed. It had a regular old VCR sitting on a regular shelf like in a motorhome. And construction that would make a Victorian pipefitter blush. It ran aground during routine operations which is not so surprising given the utter lack of precision instruments evident. I would be surprised if in the past 20 years they went from that to a usable nuclear missile platform.
You can see photos from someone else here: http://www.catracing.org/hendrb/out-and-about-in-korea-tongi...
You can see photos from someone else here: http://www.catracing.org/hendrb/out-and-about-in-korea-tongi...
Your link explicitly mentions that the equipment found in this specific vessel is probably not the original one:
Speaking of equipment, it was obvious the submarine was stripped of any useful electronic equipment, such as navigation or communication equipment. In its place were items taken from a dump.
I imagine that all the original equipment was removed and analyzed by a South Korean Intelligence Service before the Sub became accessible to the public.
Speaking of equipment, it was obvious the submarine was stripped of any useful electronic equipment, such as navigation or communication equipment. In its place were items taken from a dump.
I imagine that all the original equipment was removed and analyzed by a South Korean Intelligence Service before the Sub became accessible to the public.
The artwork is fantastic
What about the missiles of US, Russia or any other western country? I may be afraid of them too
They have you covered: https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/
Somehow even an estimate of the number of missiles or nuclear warheads isn't shown there?
Luckily, another site has it:
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohasw...
Luckily, another site has it:
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohasw...
Curiously this page makes safari on ipad crash...
It's probably the 1.4 MB jpeg flag image for Pakistan. Those little ripples/folds in the flag...
EDIT: Yeah, all of those flags are ridiculously high-resolution. Pretty rough on the browser.
EDIT: Yeah, all of those flags are ridiculously high-resolution. Pretty rough on the browser.
ty!!
It's not like security staff would cheat in their assessments, impairing their proficiency [0]
0: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-ai...
0: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-ai...
What is NK's goal? They know perfectly well that to launch a nuke against another country, especially the US, could result in NK being entirely obliterated. ~30 mostly little cites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_North_Korea How far along has this strategy been considered?
> What is NK's goal?
To preserve its sovereignty, and preserve the inflow of foreign aid that the regime uses to prop itself up by preventing the starvation and likely resulting chaos that'd occur if forced to try to support its population from its own ill-managed resources.
I'm sure at least someone close to Kim knows that to actually nuke an American city would invite massive retaliation. But seeming plausibly crazy enough to do it anyway is a good way to make an otherwise absurdly insignificant little country seem like one that needs to be reckoned with. They're banking on the idea that the US will go far out of its way to avoid even the remote possibility of even a minor nuclear strike, and thus far it's worked out for them.
To preserve its sovereignty, and preserve the inflow of foreign aid that the regime uses to prop itself up by preventing the starvation and likely resulting chaos that'd occur if forced to try to support its population from its own ill-managed resources.
I'm sure at least someone close to Kim knows that to actually nuke an American city would invite massive retaliation. But seeming plausibly crazy enough to do it anyway is a good way to make an otherwise absurdly insignificant little country seem like one that needs to be reckoned with. They're banking on the idea that the US will go far out of its way to avoid even the remote possibility of even a minor nuclear strike, and thus far it's worked out for them.
They know if you're going to obliterate their country anyway, they have a little present for you. And you know it too. That's how nuclear weapons work.
The North Koreans have no hope of beating the South in a conventional conflict. Strategically, they're in the same situation as Pakistan, which acquired nuclear weapons as a guarantee against an attack from India.
The Norks have also gotten a lot of mileage from their blackmail/bullying behavior over the years. They may be calculating other countries will be willing to make concessions to keep the crazy guy with nukes quiet.
The Norks have also gotten a lot of mileage from their blackmail/bullying behavior over the years. They may be calculating other countries will be willing to make concessions to keep the crazy guy with nukes quiet.
Does NK as a country have any goals? I think it is more just the few at the top just want to stay at the top, and play whatever games they deem necessary in order to do so.
Everything that NK does is in order to keep those people at the top. It is the absolute definition of a dictatorship. Kim Jong-un only wants to maintain his own wealth and control. That is the only goal
It's too simple view to be true. For one thing, Kim Jong-un understands that if he's not in control, he and his family members are dead. Of course, they want to maintain wealth and control, just like everyone else. But they also don't want to become dead. And they're dead in either of situations:
- if they relax the control
- if some other country decide to "liberate" NK
They probably don't see any possible way out.
- if they relax the control
- if some other country decide to "liberate" NK
They probably don't see any possible way out.
Maybe something along the lines of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory
Probably immunizing themselves against invasion.
It seems more likely to me that North Korea would deploy nukes via lower tech means. Commercial shipping or aircraft from mainland China, maybe even smuggling nukes into Mexico and across the border.
Their missile systems have a lot of scrutiny upon them and they seem unreliable at best.
North Korea already moves a lot of people and trade via China, they could probably co-ordinate Nuclear strikes on several coastal cities just by putting them onto shipping containers.
Their missile systems have a lot of scrutiny upon them and they seem unreliable at best.
North Korea already moves a lot of people and trade via China, they could probably co-ordinate Nuclear strikes on several coastal cities just by putting them onto shipping containers.
You understand the nukes are for show right. That sort of land mass would be completely decimated by whoever they decided to use those against. Like utterly and totally destroyed. What US worries about it N. Korea giving it to other countries against their interests, countries that they wish to keep under their thumb like Iran.
Right they clearly couldn't win any conflict, but it doesn't stop them trying to inflict as much damage as they can before going out.
>Due to the growing obsolescence of North Korea’s conventional military capabilities, North Korea has pivoted towards a national security strategy based on asymmetric capabilities and weapons of mass destruction
North Korea's nuclear weapons program stems from a reaction to the US deploying cannons and missiles on the border and pointing them at them in 1958.
This freaked them out a little.
North Korea's nuclear weapons program stems from a reaction to the US deploying cannons and missiles on the border and pointing them at them in 1958.
This freaked them out a little.
What do you mean to imply? Do you refer to a specific incident in 1958? Or, do you blame US military aggression for the North's current nuclear program? Perhaps if North Korea hadn't invaded the South in 1948, there would be no need for a militarized border and heavy US defensive presence.
Rather than a vanguard invasion force, I've read that the 28,500 US military personnel in Korea today exist as a sort of political tripwire. There aren't enough of them to hold the line, let alone successfully invade the North, but their deaths in the event of a conflict would commit the US to the fight.
Rather than a vanguard invasion force, I've read that the 28,500 US military personnel in Korea today exist as a sort of political tripwire. There aren't enough of them to hold the line, let alone successfully invade the North, but their deaths in the event of a conflict would commit the US to the fight.
Simply that the North Korean nuclear program was largely a reaction to deployed US nukes on the 38th parallel.
I'm bemused that this is considered a controversial fact.
Edit : I meant to say nuclear missiles and artillery were deployed in 1958 which is what NK reacted to, they had conventional weaponry deployed before that.
I'm bemused that this is considered a controversial fact.
Edit : I meant to say nuclear missiles and artillery were deployed in 1958 which is what NK reacted to, they had conventional weaponry deployed before that.
Ah, I understand now. Thanks for clarifying.
In this light, I'll note that Bush the elder removed US all nuclear arms from the Korea peninsula in 1991 (although Pyongyang's certainly still in range of American missiles and bombers):
http://thediplomat.com/2013/03/not-a-good-idea-american-nuke...
Overall, my impression is that North Korea fears a conventional ROK/US invasion much more than a nuclear exchange scenario, and that this fear (rather than of American nuclear artillery, missiles, etc) has been the primary motivation behind their nuclear arms development.
I don't think a conventional US invasion is likely, hence my comment. I also don't think the situation would be different if NK didn't have a nuclear arms program, given their alliance (or subordinate relationship?) with China.
In this light, I'll note that Bush the elder removed US all nuclear arms from the Korea peninsula in 1991 (although Pyongyang's certainly still in range of American missiles and bombers):
http://thediplomat.com/2013/03/not-a-good-idea-american-nuke...
Overall, my impression is that North Korea fears a conventional ROK/US invasion much more than a nuclear exchange scenario, and that this fear (rather than of American nuclear artillery, missiles, etc) has been the primary motivation behind their nuclear arms development.
I don't think a conventional US invasion is likely, hence my comment. I also don't think the situation would be different if NK didn't have a nuclear arms program, given their alliance (or subordinate relationship?) with China.
>In this light, I'll note that Bush the elder removed US all nuclear arms from the Korea peninsula in 1991
True, but:
* given the US's nuclear submarine, bomber and ICBM capability this was likely seen as a moot point. The threat was still there. Indeed, one of the reasons the US cited for removing its nukes was that they were no longer needed.
* They actually never fully confirmed this withdrawal until 1998.
>Overall, my impression is that North Korea fears a conventional ROK/US invasion much more than a nuclear exchange scenario
I think so too - for now, but it probably didn't seem that way in 1958 when they had nukes pointed at them.
>I also don't think the situation would be different if NK didn't have a nuclear arms program
I do. They'd be much more vulnerable to invasion. Given the US's military history in the last half century (Vietnam, Iraq, etc.), I think their fear of that is somewhat justified.
Their alliance with China does provide some protection but relations have soured over the last few decades and if I were them I wouldn't see it as a relationship they could depend upon.
True, but:
* given the US's nuclear submarine, bomber and ICBM capability this was likely seen as a moot point. The threat was still there. Indeed, one of the reasons the US cited for removing its nukes was that they were no longer needed.
* They actually never fully confirmed this withdrawal until 1998.
>Overall, my impression is that North Korea fears a conventional ROK/US invasion much more than a nuclear exchange scenario
I think so too - for now, but it probably didn't seem that way in 1958 when they had nukes pointed at them.
>I also don't think the situation would be different if NK didn't have a nuclear arms program
I do. They'd be much more vulnerable to invasion. Given the US's military history in the last half century (Vietnam, Iraq, etc.), I think their fear of that is somewhat justified.
Their alliance with China does provide some protection but relations have soured over the last few decades and if I were them I wouldn't see it as a relationship they could depend upon.
To make my own position clear - if their alliance with China does crumble, and if the nuclear danger can be mitigated, I would like to see regime change in North Korea. I'm not one for military adventurism; however, I see the current situation there as more similar to the Rwandan Genocide than the setup to the 2003 Iraq invasion.
A peaceful, East Germany-style transition would be preferable, but I also think it's possible that an invasion to free the current generation of North Koreans could do more good than letting them die under another Kim's boot. Millions live there today in deprivation and fear, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of North Koreans reportedly living (and dying, via torture and brutal execution) in Nazi-style concentration camps. Needless to say, a successful reunification of the Korean peninsula would benefit future generations of North Koreans as well.
If you're curious, here are the books which formed my impression on the subject:
"Without You, There Is No Us," https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JTC9QBO/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...
"The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why it Matters," https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004EWETZW/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...
"Dear Leader: My Escape from North Korea," https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00IBYRQ18/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...
A peaceful, East Germany-style transition would be preferable, but I also think it's possible that an invasion to free the current generation of North Koreans could do more good than letting them die under another Kim's boot. Millions live there today in deprivation and fear, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of North Koreans reportedly living (and dying, via torture and brutal execution) in Nazi-style concentration camps. Needless to say, a successful reunification of the Korean peninsula would benefit future generations of North Koreans as well.
If you're curious, here are the books which formed my impression on the subject:
"Without You, There Is No Us," https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JTC9QBO/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...
"The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why it Matters," https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004EWETZW/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...
"Dear Leader: My Escape from North Korea," https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00IBYRQ18/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...
> I think so too - for now, but it probably didn't seem that way in 1958 when they had nukes pointed at them.
Nukes were pointed at them because they've invaded South Korea first.
Nukes were pointed at them because they've invaded South Korea first.
You also forget that South Korea pays significant amount of money for US "protection".
It looks like those numbers are hard to quantify, since South Korea's expenditures include e.g. salaries for Korean workers at US bases and the provision of non-cash resources and services:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-trump-allies-20160930-sn...
I suppose if the government in Seoul no longer felt it was worth the cost, they could stop paying and ask the Americans to leave.
EDIT: Oh yeah, why did you put "protection" in quotes? That's exactly what it is. The US doesn't pay North Korea to break the South's windows, if you'll excuse the mixed metaphor.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-trump-allies-20160930-sn...
I suppose if the government in Seoul no longer felt it was worth the cost, they could stop paying and ask the Americans to leave.
EDIT: Oh yeah, why did you put "protection" in quotes? That's exactly what it is. The US doesn't pay North Korea to break the South's windows, if you'll excuse the mixed metaphor.
1958 is the year US deployed tactical nuclear weapon in South Korean bases.
How many countries has North Korea invaded so far? I think that they are only trying to cover themselves from foreign threats.
> The Korean War (25 June 1950 – 27 July 1953) began when North Korea invaded South Korea
First paragraph of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War
First paragraph of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War
I don't think that North Korea was a sovereign state at the moment, more like a puppet to other countries. NK was 2 years old and it was conceived by URSS.
Do you have any evidence that China or the USSR pushed them into invading South Korea, or are you just guessing randomly? Because my understanding is that it was NK persuading other countries to support them in the war.
> By 1949, South Korean forces had reduced the active number of communist guerrillas in the South from 5,000 to 1,000. However, Kim Il-sung believed that the guerrillas had weakened the South Korean military and that a North Korean invasion would be welcomed by much of the South Korean population. Kim began seeking Stalin's support for an invasion in March 1949, travelling to Moscow to attempt to persuade him.[94]
> Initially, Stalin did not think the time was right for a war in Korea.[95] Chinese Communist forces were still fighting in China. American forces were still stationed in South Korea (they would complete their withdrawal in June 1949) and Stalin did not want the Soviet Union to become embroiled in a war with the United States.[95]
> By spring 1950, Stalin believed the strategic situation had changed. The Soviets had detonated their first nuclear bomb in September 1949; American soldiers had fully withdrawn from Korea; the Americans had not intervened to stop the communist victory in China, and Stalin calculated that the Americans would be even less willing to fight in Korea—which had seemingly much less strategic significance. The Soviets had also cracked the codes used by the US to communicate with the US embassy in Moscow, and reading these dispatches convinced Stalin that Korea did not have the importance to the US that would warrant a nuclear confrontation.[96] Stalin began a more aggressive strategy in Asia based on these developments, including promising economic and military aid to China through the Sino–Soviet Friendship, Alliance, and Mutual Assistance Treaty.[97]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War
> By 1949, South Korean forces had reduced the active number of communist guerrillas in the South from 5,000 to 1,000. However, Kim Il-sung believed that the guerrillas had weakened the South Korean military and that a North Korean invasion would be welcomed by much of the South Korean population. Kim began seeking Stalin's support for an invasion in March 1949, travelling to Moscow to attempt to persuade him.[94]
> Initially, Stalin did not think the time was right for a war in Korea.[95] Chinese Communist forces were still fighting in China. American forces were still stationed in South Korea (they would complete their withdrawal in June 1949) and Stalin did not want the Soviet Union to become embroiled in a war with the United States.[95]
> By spring 1950, Stalin believed the strategic situation had changed. The Soviets had detonated their first nuclear bomb in September 1949; American soldiers had fully withdrawn from Korea; the Americans had not intervened to stop the communist victory in China, and Stalin calculated that the Americans would be even less willing to fight in Korea—which had seemingly much less strategic significance. The Soviets had also cracked the codes used by the US to communicate with the US embassy in Moscow, and reading these dispatches convinced Stalin that Korea did not have the importance to the US that would warrant a nuclear confrontation.[96] Stalin began a more aggressive strategy in Asia based on these developments, including promising economic and military aid to China through the Sino–Soviet Friendship, Alliance, and Mutual Assistance Treaty.[97]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War
Only one, but then again they have a mostly backwards economy and military with essentially no force projection power.
[deleted]
I remember that the USA was telling us that Iraq had missiles reaching West Europe. This is same lie. Execration!
It will be interesting to see that who will 'liberate' North Korea and how.
NK couldn't and can't be liberated because it has tens of thousands of artillery pointing toward Seoul, a city of 10M+.
That is always being repeated, but I wonder if it still holds up with modern systems like the iron dome, and especially laser weapons that are being tested right now. A combination of pre-emptive strikes on NK's artillery, combined with anti-artillery radars and a laser weapons air defense network could render NK powerless.
Edit: that assumes that SK would be the 'liberator', but chances that it would be China are probably higher.
Edit: that assumes that SK would be the 'liberator', but chances that it would be China are probably higher.
The thing is, that even if few % of their artillery/missiles get through, that can still mean hundreds of shots hitting Seoul and thousands of people dying. No one wants to take that risk.
Perhaps eventually our technology will out-pace NK's artillery so that Seoul will be basically immune from attack. We're nowhere close to that at the moment. Iron Dome isn't even entirely effective against a few artillery pieces, and NK has something like 20,000. Most of them already pre-aimed at Seoul.
there was a study some time ago dismissing the most dire projections of these artillery pieces http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-special-reports/mind-the...
While they will end up killing lots of people and causing heavy economic damage the real inability to deliver on the threat that has been kept alive by those who want a stronger stance against North Korea is likely one reason they are pursuing nuclear weapons. They know they don't have a strong threat and they want one. Whether this is to truly for self protection or for aggression is for teh intelligence wonks to figure out
While they will end up killing lots of people and causing heavy economic damage the real inability to deliver on the threat that has been kept alive by those who want a stronger stance against North Korea is likely one reason they are pursuing nuclear weapons. They know they don't have a strong threat and they want one. Whether this is to truly for self protection or for aggression is for teh intelligence wonks to figure out
Iron dome is ridiculously ineffective even against home made rockets, with a success rate of about 5%:
http://thebulletin.org/evidence-shows-iron-dome-not-working7...
http://thebulletin.org/evidence-shows-iron-dome-not-working7...
While I agree it's not going to be effective against serious firepower, you may be looking at the percentage wrong. It uses computation to only target the subset of rockets that are bound for populated areas (as far as I understand). Thus the untargeted will are still "successes".
as others have noted these capabilities are in their infancy right now and no match for the threat.
Also don't forget that next after artillery fire the NK can march in couple millions of soldiers - short of nuclear strike there is no way of stopping such a mass of infantry.
Also don't forget that next after artillery fire the NK can march in couple millions of soldiers - short of nuclear strike there is no way of stopping such a mass of infantry.
A marching soldier can be stopped with one bullet. I guess you mean these soldiers would come in some sort of armored vehicles, but those can be stopped by anti-armor guns. The task of stopping one million, or ten million soldiers is quite easy, if they are ill-equipped.
I doubt this is a main reason. Main reason is that they don't have valuable natural resources that can be exploited, they have not so important strategic location. Investment in "liberation" of NK will hardly be as beneficial for US (main "liberators" in the contemporary world) as "liberation" of other more lucrative countries (that has oil or somehow threat stability of US dollar).
That certainly may play a part in the reasoning but I doubt it's a more pressing concern than the death toll and economic destruction that South Korea would face if full on war broke out.
Not to mention that even if N. Korea were to be "liberated", I'm not entirely sure the South would want to bear the cost of reunification. Korean reunification would make German reunification look cheap in comparison.
Not to mention that even if N. Korea were to be "liberated", I'm not entirely sure the South would want to bear the cost of reunification. Korean reunification would make German reunification look cheap in comparison.
By this logic you're wrong. The value of a unified Korea particularly to South Korean firms would be astronomical in terms of a highly capable populace that could help Korea regain dominance in manufacturing
Why would they want to start a war in their own country? US start wars very far from its own borders. It's highly profitable and only small number of lives of US citizens are in danger.
But for US situation with NK and SK is already good enough: no profit from invading NK, and US already profit from having military base in SK because SK pays them huge money for it.
USA gains nothing from invading NK. When any variable change and invasion will become profitable, NK will be inevitably "liberated".
But for US situation with NK and SK is already good enough: no profit from invading NK, and US already profit from having military base in SK because SK pays them huge money for it.
USA gains nothing from invading NK. When any variable change and invasion will become profitable, NK will be inevitably "liberated".
Also, AFAIK, the people in NK are actually behind their leader.
> who will 'liberate' North Korea and how
A 2011 article from The Atlantic concerning Pakistan's nukes [1] offers clues as to how North Korea's arsenal might be rendered safe:
"This 'disablement campaign,' as one former senior Special Operations planner calls it, would be the most taxing, most dangerous of any special mission that JSOC could find itself tasked with—orders of magnitude more difficult and expansive than Abbottabad.
...
JSOC would take the lead, however, accompanied by civilian experts, and has been training for such an operation for years. JSOC forces are trained to breach the inner perimeters of nuclear installations, and then to find, secure, evacuate—or, if that’s not possible, to 'render safe'—any live weapons. At the Nevada National Security Site, northwest of Las Vegas, Delta Force and SEAL Team Six squadrons practice “Deep Underground Shelter” penetrations, using extremely sensitive radiological detection devices that can pick up trace amounts of nuclear material and help Special Operations locate the precise spot where the fissile material is stored. JSOC has also built mock Pashtun villages, complete with hidden mock nuclear-storage depots, at a training facility on the East Coast, so SEALs and Delta Force operatives can practice there.
At the same time American military and intelligence forces have been training in the U.S for such a disablement campaign, they have also been quietly pre-positioning the necessary equipment in the region. In the event of a coup, U.S. forces would rush into the country, crossing borders, rappelling down from helicopters, and parachuting out of airplanes, so they could begin securing known or suspected nuclear-storage sites. According to the former senior Special Operations planner, JSOC units’ first tasks might be to disable tactical nuclear weapons—because those are more easily mated, and easier to move around, than long-range missiles.
In a larger disablement campaign, the U.S. would likely mobilize the Army’s 20th Support Command, whose Nuclear Disablement Teams would accompany Special Operations detachments or Marine companies into the country. These teams are trained to engage in what the military delicately calls “sensitive site exploitation operations on nuclear sites”—meaning that they can destroy a nuclear weapon without setting it off. Generally, a mated nuclear warhead can be deactivated when its trigger mechanism is disabled—and so both the Army teams and JSOC units train extensively on the types of trigger mechanisms that Pakistani weapons are thought to use. According to some scenarios developed by American war planners, after as many weapons as possible were disabled and as much fissile material as possible was secured, U.S. troops would evacuate quickly—because the final stage of the plan involves precision missile strikes on nuclear bunkers, using special 'hard and deeply buried target' munitions."
[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/12/the-ally...
A 2011 article from The Atlantic concerning Pakistan's nukes [1] offers clues as to how North Korea's arsenal might be rendered safe:
"This 'disablement campaign,' as one former senior Special Operations planner calls it, would be the most taxing, most dangerous of any special mission that JSOC could find itself tasked with—orders of magnitude more difficult and expansive than Abbottabad.
...
JSOC would take the lead, however, accompanied by civilian experts, and has been training for such an operation for years. JSOC forces are trained to breach the inner perimeters of nuclear installations, and then to find, secure, evacuate—or, if that’s not possible, to 'render safe'—any live weapons. At the Nevada National Security Site, northwest of Las Vegas, Delta Force and SEAL Team Six squadrons practice “Deep Underground Shelter” penetrations, using extremely sensitive radiological detection devices that can pick up trace amounts of nuclear material and help Special Operations locate the precise spot where the fissile material is stored. JSOC has also built mock Pashtun villages, complete with hidden mock nuclear-storage depots, at a training facility on the East Coast, so SEALs and Delta Force operatives can practice there.
At the same time American military and intelligence forces have been training in the U.S for such a disablement campaign, they have also been quietly pre-positioning the necessary equipment in the region. In the event of a coup, U.S. forces would rush into the country, crossing borders, rappelling down from helicopters, and parachuting out of airplanes, so they could begin securing known or suspected nuclear-storage sites. According to the former senior Special Operations planner, JSOC units’ first tasks might be to disable tactical nuclear weapons—because those are more easily mated, and easier to move around, than long-range missiles.
In a larger disablement campaign, the U.S. would likely mobilize the Army’s 20th Support Command, whose Nuclear Disablement Teams would accompany Special Operations detachments or Marine companies into the country. These teams are trained to engage in what the military delicately calls “sensitive site exploitation operations on nuclear sites”—meaning that they can destroy a nuclear weapon without setting it off. Generally, a mated nuclear warhead can be deactivated when its trigger mechanism is disabled—and so both the Army teams and JSOC units train extensively on the types of trigger mechanisms that Pakistani weapons are thought to use. According to some scenarios developed by American war planners, after as many weapons as possible were disabled and as much fissile material as possible was secured, U.S. troops would evacuate quickly—because the final stage of the plan involves precision missile strikes on nuclear bunkers, using special 'hard and deeply buried target' munitions."
[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/12/the-ally...
It's interesting that the article says, "In the event of a coup, [US special forces will invade to take control of missiles]". Is the phrase "in the event of a coup" just a pretext for having such plans in place, or is it an actual recognition that the current government is not crazy enough to launch a suicidal offensive campaign at the rest of the world? And so the concern is future regimes or terrorists...
Anyway, I hope NK understands that any kind of unprovoked offensive nuclear action on their part will result in the rest of the world banding together to crush them. I think they do understand that. It would probably happen to any country that uses a nuke offensively, and maybe defensively too.
Anyway, I hope NK understands that any kind of unprovoked offensive nuclear action on their part will result in the rest of the world banding together to crush them. I think they do understand that. It would probably happen to any country that uses a nuke offensively, and maybe defensively too.
>. Is the phrase "in the event of a coup" just a pretext for having such plans in place, or is it an actual recognition that the current government is not crazy enough to launch a suicidal offensive campaign at the rest of the world?
It's merely discussing one such event that could lead to this plan being used, though the risks of failure mean it's unlikely to happen without a coup. What could North Korea do to make it seem like an attack was imminent and then leave enough time for this plan to take place?
North Korea will only use nukes if they're in threat of being crushed anyway, or if they have the support of China and either Russia or the US.
It's merely discussing one such event that could lead to this plan being used, though the risks of failure mean it's unlikely to happen without a coup. What could North Korea do to make it seem like an attack was imminent and then leave enough time for this plan to take place?
North Korea will only use nukes if they're in threat of being crushed anyway, or if they have the support of China and either Russia or the US.
>just a pretext for having such plans in place
If the US was planning a coup, why would they bother destroying all of their nuclear weapons?
If the US was planning a coup, why would they bother destroying all of their nuclear weapons?
[deleted]
It's not in anyone's interest to do so. No valuable natural resources to strip. Too much integration cost for South Korea. China finds a buffer state useful. US gets an excuse to keep troops and millitary equipment stationed in China's backdoor.
And ballistic missile subs of the world: http://www.hisutton.com/Nuclear%20Missile%20Submarines.html