And the US military has been instructed to prepare for South Korea's defence. Fun stuff ahead!
And the US military has been instructed to prepare for South Korea's defence. Fun stuff ahead!
Considering that we more or less control the South Korean military, it would make sense that we'd have to be the ones to prepare for war. :noob:
Oh, please. Of course the US is being careful, but no one is interested in a shooting war. And given the size disparities, the US is hardly going to be doing the lion's share of the fighting in a potential renewal of hostilities. SK has more than 20-fold more active troops than the US does in the country, not to mention twice as many reserve troops as the US has anywhere. The US would be relied on more for air and naval support to knock out NK artillery and interdict ports rather than get into a ground war.
Shooting war's already started. At least for some SK sailors who got torpedoed without warning.... :(Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Uhm, no. It's not even clear that the attack was ordered by Kim Jong-Il rather than retroactively sanctioned. A single attack does not a war create, unless the prevailing conditions make a war likely. Do you think that whatever may or may not have happened in the Gulf of Tonkin would have led to further escalation if they weren't searching for an excuse anyways?
SK has deliberately played this down and been very deliberate in their investigation. I'm betting the SK government was hoping that it wasn't an NK attack for the simple reason that they can't start a war over this even if they have justification. In parallel, I'm betting the Chinese are chewing out NK in quiet over what they must see as a colossally stupid and destabilizing move.
Let's be honest; there's not much we can do about NK without invading, and that would be an incredibly huge and costly mess. Even a retaliatory strike would go over badly.
AFAIK nothing actually happened. Certainly nothing even remotely justifying our intervention.... :(Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Agreed on all accounts.Quote:
SK has deliberately played this down and been very deliberate in their investigation. I'm betting the SK government was hoping that it wasn't an NK attack for the simple reason that they can't start a war over this even if they have justification. In parallel, I'm betting the Chinese are chewing out NK in quiet over what they must see as a colossally stupid and destabilizing move.
We could do the shock and awe bomb them to the stone age thing but that wouldn't lead anywhere that would make anyone happy. What a fucking mess. NK is the geopolitical version of that stupid oil leak. Its fucking everthing up and there's nothing anyone apparently can do about it.Quote:
Let's be honest; there's not much we can do about NK without invading, and that would be an incredibly huge and costly mess. Even a retaliatory strike would go over badly.
I don't think you understand just how many artillery pieces NK has, and how entrenched/hidden their forces are. NK hasn't a chance in an offensive war, but they could kill potentially hundreds of thousands of South Korean civilians using long-range artillery and the like. It takes a lot of time to knock out that many well-protected artillery emplacements, and the damage in the meantime would be severe.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
I've seen a CSIS article arguing that we should just effectively close their sub bases by threatening to torpedo anything that wasn't penned up, and bomb the base it came from. I'm highly skeptical this would be effective and would not escalate. Short of China putting credible pressure on NK, nothing is going to be effective.
I understand. We could do it but it would not lead anywhere that would make anyone happy.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Do you have any evidence or fact-chain theory to support your statement?Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Even if you are correct, why do you think NK troops would do anything at all? They are basically starving. Why should they fight a war when the alternative is democracy, not starving and also (major point) not getting killed by a US missile?Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
I predict NK's military to completely disintegrate within the first 3 hours of any US-led offensive operation.
May as well happen with NK. The chances of them screwing up the launch of their half-functioning half-dozen nukes is pretty high.
But pretty incredible that they've gotten themselves into this mess. And that they will still probably get away with it.
Which part? That there's not much we can do without a war, or that it would be a big mess? The former is pretty straightforward - sanctions are obviously useless (as with the nuclear issue, they don't matter too much, and China's likely to ignore them anyways), they're already diplomatically isolated, and there's not much more punishment one can give such a craphole without a military strike. It is reasonable to assume that a significant and open retaliation would lead to open warfare given N. Korea's track record of brinkmanship. The only question is whether it would be a mess. Well, the war game I linked to seems to think that it would be a colossal headache, even if the Chinese didn't get involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by agamemnus
Uhm, you think people will always gladly choose democracy over fighting the US?! The NK military may have outdated weapons systems, but they're still a pretty potent force, and pretty much the only functioning institution in the country (other than the Worker's Party of Korea). North Koreans are subjected to ridiculous brainwashing - even refugees who leave the country because conditions there are intolerable still think Americans are out to get them. I find your scenario highly unlikely - a rapid victory against brainwashed communists who have substandard weapons hasn't worked in the past, any more than a rapid victory against Islamic nutjobs has.Quote:
Even if you are correct, why do you think NK troops would do anything at all? They are basically starving. Why should they fight a war when the alternative is democracy, not starving and also (major point) not getting killed by a US missile?
I predict NK's military to completely disintegrate within the first 3 hours of any US-led offensive operation.
For that matter, the US can't 'lead' an offensive against NK. We have about 60k troops spread between SK and Japan, but that's barely enough to make a dent (and we hardly have any to spare from anywhere else). North Korea has over five million troops. Any war is likely to be led by South Korean troops, with US air/naval/logistical support. We're also talking about heavy casualties. Even if NK nukes don't get off the ground (which I agree is a pretty likely scenario), they've still got a pretty devastating ability to kill large numbers of South Korean civilians in the early stages of the war.
Kim Jong-Il should be forced to apologize and beg the SK & the west's forgiveness. Its up to SK since they would be the ones who would lose the thousands of civilians and get their city shot up, but if they wanted to make it a shooting war the United States has an obligation to wipe the shit stain that is NK off the face of the map.Quote:
Uhm, no. It's not even clear that the attack was ordered by Kim Jong-Il rather than retroactively sanctioned.
Even if it destroys the South's economy and kills hundreds of thousands? That would show Kim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Maybe we can spend a trillion dollars destroying North Korea like we did destroying Saddam's Iraq. Wouldn't that be great becasue we're made of fucking money and what else are we going to mortgage our souls on afterall? Certainly not on the infrastructure of our own national civilization because we're working on starving that beast so we can go back to pre-1939 America when men were men and bootstraps were long. Conservatives and their fucking beautiful priorities. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Boy if we'd only taken care of North Korea back in the '50s instead of going into armistice ad nauseum. And with that, boy if we'd only just taken China's threat seriously when we approached their border. Blah blah blah blah fukin' blah. What a fuckin' mess this all is. There just doesn't seem to be any good options. Maybe we should just go on and "reward" them with some direct talks? Rumor has it they rEALLy want that. What could be worse about doing that than what we're doing now?
Saw this on the front page here:
SourceQuote:
SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea has announced it will sever all ties with South Korea, the country's official KCNA news agency said on Tuesday, citing a spokesman for the North's national reunification committee.
Pyongyang also said its troops were bracing for war as tensions spiked on the divided peninsula over the sinking of a South Korean warship in late March.
If this were a movie or a game, I'd like to see the war. But those are real people over there. Damn it. :mad:
This'll be war if they're not careful. And it's the kind of war where we have not much to gain but a lot to lose: even the Nork military could be neutered without overly heavy civilian casualties in the south... then what?
Who wants the job of trying to turn the North into a semi-functional state, let alone one ready to be unified with the south? Anyone? No?
Hopefully they'll be careful, then.
Hey, did the US and Japan ever get that "ballistic missile defense form Aegis equipped ships" thing working? It might come in handy.
In theory, yes. The US has deployed AEGIS-equipped destroyers to the Sea of Japan in the past, and Japan has another 3 or 4 AEGIS-equipped ships. Recent tests with the SM-3 have worked decently, though it'll be great when they get Block II missiles to dramatically decrease the number of platforms needed for good coverage. Additionally, both Japan and SK have lower-tier Patriot batteries on their mainlands, though I'm unsure if either has upgraded to PAC-3 from PAC-2. To my knowledge, no ROK ship has the AEGIS ABM capability (there are two destroyers that have the combat system, though, so maybe they are upgradable with the appropriate missiles?). I know that ROK is looking to buy Israel's fancy theater ABM radar system (Green Pine), though I think it won't be delivered for another year or two. Use of the full Arrow system would require US Congressional approval, though. In theory, though, the Green Pine radar could be interfaced with US/Japanese AEGIS ships to provide decent cover for at least part of the mainland, potentially all of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Of course, this is largely only useful against large ballistic missiles. Smaller rockets and artillery can't really be stopped by these systems. Even if they ended up getting a functional version of something like the David's Sling/Magic Wand or Iron Dome (or even a C-RAM for point defense), the incremental cost per intercept combined with deployment costs for decent coverage is hideously expensive for all but the most dangerous warheads. They'd do better to harden important sites and work up a good counterforce plan.
It's possible, yeah. Tensions mounting among the troops because their friends are dying and they're not able to do anything about it, sparking larger events and snowballing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Not really.Quote:
Hey, did the US and Japan ever get that "ballistic missile defense form Aegis equipped ships" thing working? It might come in handy.
I'm thinking more of a scenario where nukes are fired at Japanese (Japan: "Fuck off! Why is it always us?") cities. I think it'd be difficult to stop the South getting it in the face in the event of war. Also, some of the longer ranged NK missiles can hit theeasternwestern US, but they don't work too well.
Pyongyang has some issues with Puppet Army Gangs, apparently.
I get the feeling that if they use their nukes, or even attempt a launch, that they'll be steamrolled by the international community. They're crazy, but not suicidal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
If a war is started, they have no real reason not to pop off one at Japan or Seoul.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
Steely's idea of them hitting the western U.S is crazy though. Hawaii is the only viable U.S target within range, and there's loads of Navy bases there to shoot a nuke down.
People, there's very little evidence that NK has made deliverable warheads, anyways. They've certainly got a few crude devices and some crappy ballistic missiles, but whether they can put them together into a real weapon is not clear. I don't think nukes are the concern with NK right now.
I'm not disagreeing with you, it just makes me question the validity of our decade and a half long up-in-arms attitude about their nuckular abitions. Lead-in to Iran...Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
If they do it'd be enough just to lob a kilometre or two over the border into Seoul and annihilate a few hundred thousand SK'ians. I doubt Mr Il and his Ilk care too much if a few thousand NK'ians turn to ash in the process.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Nobody's going to be shooting down a missle, assuming they can aim it that well.... They might be able to shoot it down, but the odds are long enough that its safe to assume they can't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supermarioman
You think he doesn't suspect he'd be committing suicide for himself, his family and his regime with such an action? He'd only do something like that if it looked like he had nothing to lose. Now, on the other hand, whoever shot that torpedo probably didn't have permission from the government, so, who knows what sort of wild cat autonomy lower level officers have...Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
I was addressing the hows rather than the whys of their nyooklier capability.
But if you wanna address the whys, I see a very paranoid, very insular, very belligerent, and very dribblingly batty crackpot regime. Poke it with a sharp stick and who can predict the results.
It's why I think, and I really dislike the notion, total and widespread pre-emptive strikes might be the best way forward were a war looking much more likely than less.
Uhm, the reason people are concerned is that NK (and Iran) are very actively trying to improve their capabilities. Both countries have focused a lot of effort on (1) enriching nuclear material, (2) warhead design, and (3) ballistic missile design. Waiting until each country has an arsenal of deliverable nukes is a really stupid idea. NK currently has several weapons, though it's doubtful they have decent warheads yet. They also have very aggressively pursued ICBMs, with mixed (but improving) results. So if a shooting war were to start tomorrow, it's unlikely nukes would be a major factor (maybe some tactical devices). But if a war started 10 years from now, it is likely they would be a major concern.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Delivery systems are an issue - their current devices are pretty big and need a lot of lift for missile delivery. A plane-dropped device is more likely, but much easier to protect against.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
Actually the US has a decent chance of shooting down a lone non-MIRV missile nowadays. Our ABM systems are miles better than they used to be It took an unthinkable amount of money and over two decades, but basic ABM systems are beginning to pay off.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
I wouldn't necessarily agree that the torpedo attack "probably" didn't have higher-up approval, either. Just because it seems irrational doesn't mean Kim Jong Il wouldn't order it. The decision making process in the NK regime is very opaque, even to officials in their government. I doubt we'll ever know who ordered the attack.
#1. I'm very skeptical and will be until its demonstrated outside a highly controled test environment.Quote:
Actually the US has a decent chance of shooting down a lone non-MIRV missile nowadays. Our ABM systems are miles better than they used to be It took an unthinkable amount of money and over two decades, but basic ABM systems are beginning to pay off.
#2. I don't think you can say anything about payoff until its demonstrated outside a highly controled test environment.
;)
That is why I said it was SK's call.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
And if this nice war leads to the death of 10-20k American troops in the first day alone?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Okay, why don't we start a war just to test our ABM systems? :rolleyes: Tests of the SM-3 missiles coupled with the AEGIS/etc. systems have gotten progressively harder and more realistic, and they have shown decent and improving results. Outside of a real battlefield test, it's hard to know how they'll perform, but it's not unreasonable to expect they'll be at least okay.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
All the more reason to wipe out NK if it comes to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
What would you like to see happen Loki? What if NK sinks another ship? What if they do two more? What if they lob a few artillery shells for the hell of it. At what point have they crossed the line where you end NK?
Do you have any links?Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Sure. You may recall the furor last week about a NYT article suggesting that SM-3 testing was unrealistic, yes? The Pentagon disagrees with their information and their analysis:Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
http://www.defense.gov/Blog_files/Bl...hner_trans.pdf
For balance, the Postol-Lewis analysis they mention is here:
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2010_05/Lewis-Postol
edit: a non-PDF from MDA with essentially the same info:
http://www.mda.mil/news/10news0005.html
Last I heard, we were still managing about 1-in-3. Which is miles better than it used to be, sure, but still not what I'd call effective.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Depends on the system you're talking about, LF. There are multiplexed ABM systems in development. You may be referring to the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, which has a pretty abysmal test record. Many other systems are still in early development (e.g. laser-based systems), but don't have much test data yet. But the SM-3 missile in combination with the AEGIS system has a pretty good track record - IIRC 18 of the last 22 test intercepts (and that's assuming you only launch one interceptor). It's not a solution for every possible threat, of course, and its range is still limited (though the Block II missile should be far better). But it's the best system the US currently fields by far. It has had one actual operational 'success', albeit in a non-emergent environment - the SM-3 shot down a US satellite a year or so ago. There's a reason why many people have suggested that the Pentagon scrap the current GBM system in favor of an upgraded land-based variant of the SM-3 missile. Coupled with the flexibility of deploying AEGIS ships at need, this could provide a global, fairly flexible ABM system in relatively short order.
The only other two decent ABM systems in production are the Army's THAAD and Israel's Arrow. The issue is that they are both theater systems focused on terminal phase defense (though the Arrow 3 is starting to almost target midcourse defense). They're good at defending small areas (like, say, the state of Israel or a city/island/etc.), but not as useful for a larger umbrella. The Arrow is probably the most agile system out there, now, especially wrt integration to other defense systems: recent exercises with the US have focused on integration of an X-band radar, AEGIS systems, Israeli radar systems, PAC batteries, and Arrow batteries. Their idea is to have multiple layers of defense against an incoming ballistic missile - early acquisition of the target, engaging it with SM-3s launched from US Navy ships, followed by Arrow-3s on early re-entry, followed by PAC batteries at lower altitudes. This gives a lot more chances to intercept the missile - if each kill vehicle has ~95% chance of knocking out a target, giving yourself 5 or 6 chances to do so makes it a pretty safe system. (You can also decrease costs by redirecting interceptors to other targets if the first sets have worked.) I know that the US and Japan have done similar work interfacing AEGIS BMD systems on US and Japanese boats with land-based PAC-3 systems - I wouldn't be surprised if SK has also worked on this, though I don't know for sure.
Ballistic missile defense was a fantasy back in the 80s when Reagan first announced Star Wars, and most of those ideas were pretty awful (space-based X-ray lasers powered by nuclear bombs, anyone?). While early Patriot missiles were okay at hitting missiles, they didn't have the punch to effectively destroy them (much the Israeli's chagrin in 1991). But the last decade has quietly seen a revolution happen in missile defense technologies. A combination of better computation powers, fancier missile design, and sophisticated radar/tracking systems have resulted in pretty good products. Decent theater ballistic missile defense already exists, though I wouldn't want to try it against a large barrage of missiles (5-10 at a time is doable, but hundreds would be pretty awful), especially given the cost of interceptors ($3-10 million depending on the missile). Expanding from regional systems to a global system will take time and some fancy engineering, but it looks like the SM-3 system is the best out there right now.
There are two major types of threats I don't think we are close to solving: large barrages of long-range missiles, and very short range missiles/artillery. The former requires a prohibitive investment in interceptors that would likely be just as easily solved with deterrence (e.g. why Russia shouldn't worry too much about US ABM plans). The latter just doesn't give much time for an intercept - even Israel's fancy Iron Dome system needs something like 20 seconds for an intercept, which isn't enough time to hit a Qassam rocket (not to mention the cost differential). I suspect that laser-based systems might be able to solve these problems, but they are years away from practical application. There are some fancy test results in the last year or two on laser weapons to address both types of threats, but they're still pretty expensive and temperamental. If the laser power could be jacked up without using chemical lasers, though, it might be doable.
If the North sinks another ship, they'll be retaliation for sure. If they decide to escalate after that, it'll probably mean all out war. The point is that this course of events would be a huge mess both in terms of numbers of dead and aftermath, so it's a course of events that should probably be avoided if we can possibly help it. We're talking 5000-10,000 South Korean civilian dead (if we're lucky, it'll be that low anyway) in the opening barrage from the Northern artillery. After that I think things would get progressively more one way until the defeat of the North, but then after that you have the problem of what to do with North Korea once they've been defeated. The country is a huge, huge mess - about as far from a functional state as it's possible to get. Reunification is almost out of the question: think of the problems Germany had when reintegrating with the east times, like, a thousand. So someone has to rebuild it and someone has to pay for that: who? Plus, there's repairing the damage done to SK in the war itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
So maybe you'll understand that this isn't a chain of events the people making decisions want to push just to prove how hardcore they are.
Yeah, just like AEGIS (except for that passenger airline one time), and a lot of other modern naval kit. Most of it has never been used in actual battle.Quote:
Tests of the SM-3 missiles coupled with the AEGIS/etc. systems have gotten progressively harder and more realistic, and they have shown decent and improving results. Outside of a real battlefield test, it's hard to know how they'll perform, but it's not unreasonable to expect they'll be at least okay.
You uh
you really like huge, honking phallic things that erupt and come into close contact
don't you?