North Korea at it again

[pbar]

9 hours ago, cantfly said:

word words... "People in S. Korea aren't violent natured at all, hence their appeasement strategy to N. Korea for so many years."  more words

As a Korea RAS and a dude with a Korean wife, I can say this statement is categorically false. 

Edited April 27, 2017 by pbar

[Day Man]

25 minutes ago, cantfly said:

I guess growing up around Apaches on Ft. Hood gives me no creditability since my old man dealt with the avionics and IFF systems on board at Hood and in Korea.

I grew up riding in cars...I'm basically a certified mechanic.

[Clark Griswold]

14 hours ago, waveshaper said:

Hopefully President Trumps NSC team (State Department/Intel Community/Sec Def/ and "Generals") read the tea leaves/play their cards better then Truman's bumbling NSC crew did back in 1950. Maybe China will let the US/ROK wrap-up that slightly delayed, Korean War ending,  grand finale/cake walk to the Yalu push A.K.A. "Home-by-Christmas Offensive" that General Walker of the Eighth Army started at 10 a.m. on November 24, 1950. Better late then never.  :<)

Yup, completely caught with their pants down, attacking as their diplomatic delegation was enroute and anticipated in NYC.

 

Further on a Korean War / Crisis, the refugee factor:

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/war-with-north-korea-could-mean-a-refugee-crisis-no-one-1794498603

and another good series of articles from Stratfor, the 3rd & 4th, on how the US/ROK would preemptively strike and how NK would respond:

https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/what-us-would-use-strike-north-korea

https://www.stratfor.com/article/how-north-korea-would-retaliate

[panchbarnes]

Not quite sure how I feel about this WaPo article:

 

Produced by the WaPo Targeting Branch

[ATIS]

[Clark Griswold]

War on the Rocks has a good article on NK with an apt title:

TIME TO LOSE YOUR ILLUSIONS ON NORTH KOREA

Articles like these are almost obliged to close with recommendations:

Live with it, improve BMD, do sneaky shit to bring down the regime, tighten sanctions.

 

 

 

 

[Lawman]

I'd agree with the sentiment of BMD and secret squirrel stuff while trying to get regional powers to either force or guide the regime out of the weird la la land it lives in.

If we were planning on doing something militarily to stop Nuclear proliferation into the DPRK that ship has long since sailed. One nuke popping off in the region would be devastating globally as it would create a humanitarian and fiscal crises that the world is ill prepared to simply absorb.

At this point dealing with what can best be described as irrational leadership in that country. The only way we would end up even ok in a situation like that is we strike the hell out of them, Kim tries to retaliate as a dying act of desperation, and somehow cooler heads within his inner circle decide they don't want to commit suicide and remove him from power.

That's definitely betting it all on one number at the roulette table.

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, Lawman said:

I'd agree with the sentiment of BMD and secret squirrel stuff while trying to get regional powers to either force or guide the regime out of the weird la la land it lives in.

If we were planning on doing something militarily to stop Nuclear proliferation into the DPRK that ship has long since sailed. One nuke popping off in the region would be devastating globally as it would create a humanitarian and fiscal crises that the world is ill prepared to simply absorb.

At this point dealing with what can best be described as irrational leadership in that country. The only way we would end up even ok in a situation like that is we strike the hell out of them, Kim tries to retaliate as a dying act of desperation, and somehow cooler heads within his inner circle decide they don't want to commit suicide and remove him from power.

That's definitely betting it all on one number at the roulette table.

Agreed and as to a pre-emptive strike, we can't bomb away the knowledge already resident in the DPRK's scientists and technicians and unless we want to use tactical nukes there is no strike option that at the onset of hostilities that can destroy and / or degrade their WMD capabilities fast enough or with enough surety to prevent a major population center (Seoul) from being hit (chem or nuke).

So does that mean we're (SK, USA and Japan) stuck with being occasionally attacked by this regime like the SK Navy ship the ROKS Cheonan or USS Pueblo and having to just take it?  No, respond tactically and forcefully in a controlled manner to provocations but it is time to pull out of the same thinking and strategies that is just continuing the stalemate at the macro level.

I am not sure this is possible or would work but I know if we are serious about putting some serious cracks in the foundation of NK, we need to do different things and this is pretty damn different:

How To Stop North Korea: A Geoeconomic Approach

Strategic patience as the former POTUS framed it is not working and if we keep saying that the NK regime having nukes and/or developing ICBMs is unacceptable then we need a new approach.  

If our recent past has taught us anything, if we do get involved or find ourselves involved, time is not actually on our side.  Start trying like hell to crack the foundation.

Edited July 10, 2017 by Clark Griswold

[BashiChuni]

That's a great article 

what about Just killing the great leader? 

[Lawman]

That's a great article
what about Just killing the great leader?

I'm not sure there is any way we could do it without incurring some sort of crazy death pact act of aggression with that lunatic.

Plus the biggest threat in a non military situation would be a complete collapse at the only thing keeping North Korea together which is its functioning totalitarian regime of crazy. Without that NK becomes the anchor around the neck of the entire Asian economy because it will take trillions of dollars to fix the fact that it's stuck in 1957.

[SurelySerious]

If you ignore the likely mass casualties from all the artillery and ballistic missiles to the south, it's an untapped market. Millions of people with no car or phone...and no money, but ignore that.

[Prosuper]

Maybe NK will blackmail SK into capitulating by either surrender or we nuke Seoul. The present SK ruling party is not U.S. friendly. Or threaten SK by asking us to leave the penisula.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using Baseops Network Forums mobile app

[Clark Griswold]

How I think the relevant players want things:
NK regime - status quo plus protection money
China - status quo
SK - status quo with naive engagement
USA - status quo and maybe some ransom paid for less belligerence (quietly)

Unless the Young General miscalculates whatever provocation or shenanigans he is attempting to pull off the status quo will probably continue absent something coming in from left field


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[carminsandiego]

this question is directed more for the gray beards...

 

from your experience and knowledge, is the stuff happening at NK just another one of those attempts to gain attention and free food/supplies or is this a bit more serious?

If you were to get stationed there now and had the option, would you or would you not bring your family (for safety reasons)? 

[pbar]

The north Koreans want nukes to effect reunification on their terms and it's far more than just an extortion racket.  I was a Korea RAS/FAO and in my opinion these two gentlemen have the situation pegged light years better than any other academic or pundit;  B.R. Myers (https://sthelepress.com/index.php/2017/07/03/north-korea-nuclear-armament-and-unification/) and Joshua Stanton (https://freekorea.us/2016/09/01/how-kim-jong-un-can-still-win-the-korean-war-part-1/#sthash.GxqDMieE.Hsc2HPHL.dpbs).  Ignore the rest. 

[HU&W]

7500km with payload holds a lot of very populated places at risk.  Alaska and Hawaii are included, along with most of Australia, all of Asia, and Eastern Europe.  This latest successful test changes the calculus, and I'm a little surprised that social issues are still snagging the top headlines while the wolf howls at our door.

Edit to add.  If indeed the second test was as claimed, 10,000km puts everything Northwest of Oklahoma in the WEZ.

Edited July 30, 2017 by HU&W

[Breckey]

Time to get the YAL-1 out of the boneyard

[bb17]

North Korea is about to get rekt. 

[nunya]

1 hour ago, bb17 said:

North Korea is about to get rekt. 

Here ya go, retirees: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rekt

[Lord Ratner]

I'm a little surprised that social issues are still snagging the top headlines while the wolf howls at our door.

Tell that to Neville Chamberlain

[panchbarnes]

 

Well...that's next week!

[Clark Griswold]

Another good article from WOR:

https://warontherocks.com/2017/08/deterring-north-korea-the-next-nuclear-tailoring-agenda/

Just my two cents but in this one particular security threat to the world, our nation and allies we should carve out an exception to our/their policies and treaty obligations (NPT) and allow for a small scale development and deployment of a limited, regionally aligned and declared tactical nuclear military deterrent.  This would be for SK and Japan to organically deter NK.

- Delivery systems only built to limited range, in this case about 225 NM to not threaten China.  SK would be land based, Japan would build a sea based deterrence system.

- Limited deployment, at most, 30 missiles per SK and Japan. 

- Very limited warhead yield, 5 kiloton maximum yield.  Target intention is for deployed formations of conventional forces or static military / industrial installations.  

- Develop and share Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator technology for deeply bunkered targets.

- Targeting policy of no civilian population centers, only military / political installations.  Reduces deterrence capability and could be stymied by human shielding but philosophically it is to be considered a necessary evil with every intention of only holding military targets at risk.

- No first strike policy.  Reduces deterrence again but a philosophical statement of defensive and deterrent capability only.

The Army is already developing Long Range Precision Fires (LRPF) to replace the MGM-140 ATACMS which SK already has, develop a nuclear capable variant with a new small yield warhead and keep the DPRK at bay.  If nothing, this will light a fire under China to change the behavior of NK as this would take sometime to develop, train and deploy and the only way for them to stop SK and Japan from attaining a nuclear deterrence capability is to eliminate the reason for their attaining it.

[waveshaper]

12 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Another good article from WOR:

https://warontherocks.com/2017/08/deterring-north-korea-the-next-nuclear-tailoring-agenda/

Just my two cents but in this one particular security threat to the world, our nation and allies we should carve out an exception to our/their policies and treaty obligations (NPT) and allow for a small scale development and deployment of a limited, regionally aligned and declared tactical nuclear military deterrent.  This would be for SK and Japan to organically deter NK.

 

^IMHO, this might be a bridge to far^.

We could possibly do something like in NATO, where we "Share" US Nukes with a few non-nuclear NATO countries. I'm not sure what the ramifications would be if we did something like this with SK and Japan. I'm sure it would rattle the cages of the other big boys in that AO and the Norks.

Short example of how this works in NATO;
- Under the NATO umbrella the US has a Nuclear Sharing Agreement with Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, and Turkey (hopefully we have removed the nukes from Turkey by now). As part of this nuclear sharing arrangement, the participating countries carry out consultations and take common decisions on nuclear weapons policy, maintain technical equipment required for the use of nuclear weapons (including warplanes capable of delivering them), and store nuclear weapons on their territory.

In peacetime, the nuclear weapons stored in these non-nuclear countries are guarded by USAF personnel; the Permissive Action Link codes required for arming them remain under American control. In case of war, the weapons are to be mounted on the participating countries' warplanes and then; "it's the end of the world as we know it".

-  Another way to send a serious "symbolic" message to North Korea would be for the USAF to start staging/launching our long range, nuclear capable bombers (B-2/B-52), from "Tinian Airfield" . We will probably need to add a couple thousand feet to the runway before we start launching these saber rattling/show of force missions from this airfield. Tinian would become "once again" the home of the "509th" Expeditionary Bomb Squadron/Group/Wing. (Sarcasm, I think).

Edited August 10, 2017 by waveshaper

[VMFA187]

2 hours ago, waveshaper said:

-  Another way to send a serious "symbolic" message to North Korea would be for the USAF to start staging/launching our long range, nuclear capable bombers (B-2/B-52), from "Tinian Airfield" . We will probably need to add a couple thousand feet to the runway before we start launching these saber ratting/show of force missions from this airfield. Tinian would become "once again" the home of the "509th" Expeditionary Bomb Squadron/Group/Wing. (Sarcasm, I think).

 

Agreed. I took a short field arrestment at Tinian a few years ago and it was awfully small, even for a fighter.

[Weezer]

13 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Another good article from WOR:

https://warontherocks.com/2017/08/deterring-north-korea-the-next-nuclear-tailoring-agenda/

Just my two cents but in this one particular security threat to the world, our nation and allies we should carve out an exception to our/their policies and treaty obligations (NPT) and allow for a small scale development and deployment of a limited, regionally aligned and declared tactical nuclear military deterrent.  This would be for SK and Japan to organically deter NK.

- Delivery systems only built to limited range, in this case about 225 NM to not threaten China.  SK would be land based, Japan would build a sea based deterrence system.

- Limited deployment, at most, 30 missiles per SK and Japan. 

- Very limited warhead yield, 5 kiloton maximum yield.  Target intention is for deployed formations of conventional forces or static military / industrial installations.  

- Develop and share Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator technology for deeply bunkered targets.

- Targeting policy of no civilian population centers, only military / political installations.  Reduces deterrence capability and could be stymied by human shielding but philosophically it is to be considered a necessary evil with every intention of only holding military targets at risk.

- No first strike policy.  Reduces deterrence again but a philosophical statement of defensive and deterrent capability only.

The Army is already developing Long Range Precision Fires (LRPF) to replace the MGM-140 ATACMS which SK already has, develop a nuclear capable variant with a new small yield warhead and keep the DPRK at bay.  If nothing, this will light a fire under China to change the behavior of NK as this would take sometime to develop, train and deploy and the only way for them to stop SK and Japan from attaining a nuclear deterrence capability is to eliminate the reason for their attaining it.

Not sure that SK and Japan would get along all that well without the US Leviathan...domestic politics could very easily resort to jingoism, especially under the potential of Chinese info-ops.  Now you have historical enemies with nukes.

In any case, we need to shape the situation in advance by assuring China of no US ground troops north of DMZ either during or after offensive ops.

Edited August 10, 2017 by Weezer
Added info