Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

U.S. Nuclear Weapon to Be Used in Case of N. Korea`s Invasion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • U.S. Nuclear Weapon to Be Used in Case of N. Korea`s Invasion

    http://english.donga.com/srv/service...=2004110808058

    U.S. Nuclear Weapon to Be Used in Case of N. Korea`s Invasion

    NOVEMBER 07, 2004 23:25
    by Won-Jae Park ([email protected])

    The U.S. has completed a scenario in which it would drop 30 nuclear weapons if the North invades the South, Japan’s news agency Kyodo News reported on November 7. The report also said the U.S. had exercised a simulated dropping drill in 1998 in preparedness for a worst-case scenario and the North’s use of nuclear weapons. The U.S. has detected the North’s nuclear development since 1982, the Kyodo News reported, quoting from the U.S. government’s classified documents that U.S. anti-nuclear and environmental protection groups and private research institutes demanded to open based on the Freedom of Information Act. Titled, “Vulnerabilities of North Korea’s Military,” the document was written in March 1978 by a private institute at the request of the U.S. Defense Department. This document indicates that in the event of a North Korean invasion to the South, the U.S. would use 30 nuclear weapons. The Kyodo News explained that the scenario was a clear testimony to the U.S. willingness to pursue a nuclear deterrence policy, even though it had already announced withdrawal of its strategic weapons from overseas bases and removed all nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula.

    Indeed, the U.S. had carried out a six-month simulated attack drill of transporting nuclear weapons by flight from the U.S. continent to North Korea. Military aircraft such as Airborne Warning & Control System (AWACS), KC135 tankers, and F15E fighter-bombers have participated.

    A Simulated Dropping Drill Against North Korea

    The U.S. 4th Fighter Wing, mobilizing 24 F15E fighter-bombers, had carried out the loading and dropping operation of mock warheads in a simulated nuclear strike for the first half of 1998. In this drill, bombers that left Seymour Johnson AFB in North Carolina flew 599 miles to Avon Park in Florida to drop mock warheads at the shooting range of the airbase there. In the context of the long distances from the U.S. continent to North Korea, AWACS and KC135 tankers were in the drill as well.

    North Korea Continued Nuclear Development Since 1982

    The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) found out that despite it being a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1985, the North had already started building a new experimental reactor in Yongbyon Nuclear Center in 1982. In its classified documents titled “North Korea: Potential for Nuclear Weapon Development,” the CIA pointed out that the North would willingly develop nuclear weapons and, with a few imported materials, it would be able to set up detonators in nuclear weapons in a short time. Also, a slight remodeling of the MiG-23 fighter aircraft would easily serve as a nuclear weapon carrier, which could reach major targets in northern South Korea, according to the agency’s analysis.

    The agency also detected 100 cave-like sites that it assumed were the traces of high-explosive explosions and identified them as nuclear test sites. Then-president Bill Clinton had considered attacking North Korea, which means the Korean Peninsula faced a potential nuclear crisis from 1993 to 1994.
    Ask your ISP to add the following newsgroups:

    alt.war.world-war-one
    alt.war.world-war-two
    alt.war.world-war-three
    alt.war.napoleonic
    alt.war.war-of-1812
    alt.war.terrorism
    alt.war.biological
    alt.war.chemical
    alt.war.misc

  • #2
    So what? Like we weren't going to use nukes on the NKs boiling south if they tried it 30 years ago?

    -dale

    Comment


    • #3
      Well IMO, nukes (and massive airstrikes) are the only way we can hold the line if the North Koreans choose to invade the south.

      Comment


      • #4
        There's probably a plan just like this one, for every other country in the world. It would be foolish not to have such plans.
        No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
        I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
        even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
        He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by ChrisF202
          Well IMO, nukes (and massive airstrikes) are the only way we can hold the line if the North Koreans choose to invade the south.
          It is the 10,000 artillery pieces the North has aimed at Seoul city that is the problem. They could inflict so match damage.

          The North knows war means the destruction of their government, so they won't start it.
          Ask your ISP to add the following newsgroups:

          alt.war.world-war-one
          alt.war.world-war-two
          alt.war.world-war-three
          alt.war.napoleonic
          alt.war.war-of-1812
          alt.war.terrorism
          alt.war.biological
          alt.war.chemical
          alt.war.misc

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by war2004
            It is the 10,000 artillery pieces the North has aimed at Seoul city that is the problem. They could inflict so match damage.

            The North knows war means the destruction of their government, so they won't start it.
            Who knows what the voices in Kim Jong Il's head tell him?

            If he's as nutty as he acts then I wouldn't put anything past him.

            -dale

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by war2004
              It is the 10,000 artillery pieces the North has aimed at Seoul city that is the problem. They could inflict so match damage.

              The North knows war means the destruction of their government, so they won't start it.
              One of my intlligence analyst jobs that I loved very, very much was as the Noth Korean Desk NCOIC. Once, during a briefing to my commander and the staff, he asked me what I thought would happen over the next week. I said, "Colonel, I've stopped making predictions on what the DPRK will do. There is no better way to lose all credibility as an analyst. What is illogical to a Western mind makes perfect sense to a North Korean; their calculus in any given situation is imponderable to us, and when it looks like they have done something completely against their own interests, they count it as genius."

              I'm still of that mind: if you want to make a small fortune, bet on what North Korea will do. But you'll have to start with a large one, because you'll lose your wagers.

              Comment


              • #8
                Kim Jong Il is supposedly a pretty smart guy from what I've read, anyway.

                Dropping nukes on NK in response for an invasion of the South is pure lunacy. They may have nuclear weapons themselves that if they weren't destroyed, they would certainly use to blow up Tokyo. Second, you don't know how China would react to such a move. As NKs main ally they might decide to get involved as well.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by barrowaj
                  Dropping nukes on NK in response for an invasion of the South is pure lunacy.
                  How would you propose the invasion be successfully stopped?
                  No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                  I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                  even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                  He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Confed999
                    How would you propose the invasion be successfully stopped?
                    Nowadays the SKs could probably handle it. Seoul is a write-off no matter what though, from what I understand.

                    -dale

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Bluesman
                      , "Colonel, I've stopped making predictions on what the DPRK will do. There is no better way to lose all credibility as an analyst. What is illogical to a Western mind makes perfect sense to a North Korean; their calculus in any given situation is imponderable to us, ."

                      I'm still of that mind: if you want to make a small fortune, bet on what North Korea will do. But you'll have to start with a large one, because you'll lose your wagers.
                      Excellent analysis.

                      The Oriental mind is totally different, which the occidentals don't fathom.

                      Even amongst the Orientals, they vary.

                      In India, we are still trying to understand the Chinese mind and failing rather hoplessly.


                      "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                      I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                      HAKUNA MATATA

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        "How would you propose the invasion be successfully stopped?"

                        Blocking the 3 primary invasion routes suitable for a massed mechanized assault and then cutting the tail to pieces with TACAIR and ARTY.

                        Simple.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by M21Sniper
                          "How would you propose the invasion be successfully stopped?"

                          Blocking the 3 primary invasion routes suitable for a massed mechanized assault and then cutting the tail to pieces with TACAIR and ARTY.

                          Simple.
                          It wouldn't be 'simple', but I believe the window of opportunity has now closed decisively for the DPRK to pull it off. I believe that our casualties would be heavy, that most of the RoK would be overrun, and that the intensity of the fighting would ruin both parts of Korea.

                          TACAIR and artillery would be a great help to us...but the North Koreans realize that, which is why their long-range artillery* and SOF** are all ranged against making certain they attempt to neutralize it ASAP at the start of hostilities.***

                          *The DPRK possesses the longest-ranged conventional artillery piece in the world - the Koksan gun, a 170mm self-propelled gun that can fire a rocket-assisted projectile (RAP round, for short) nearly sixty miles. Although not confirmed, the DPRK is thought to have developed a fuel-air explosive shell for the Koksan gun with a max range of 30+ miles. Against a fixed high-value target - like Osan Airbase - a concentration of these weapons could make the base untenable within the first minutes of hostilities.

                          **North Korean SOF is designed to infiltrate into the RoK and concentrate on neutralizing the most potent American and RoK firepower - artillery and TACAIR. They would do this by attacking depots where the guns are stored, barracks where the crews live, and flightlines and hangars where the aircraft are positioned. They are extremely strong in terms of numbers, and they are highly-motivated. The threat they pose to American/RoK oplans is very high, due to the extreme difficulty of stopping men that have no expectation of surviving their missions.

                          ***North Korea is assessed to have the greatest standing-start capability of any major military in the entire dam' world. Literally at the word, the North Koreans can instantly respond, and will begin operations by the time they're hanging up the phone. They believe in the 'come-as-you-are war', and believe that if they do not tip off their enemy by engaging in easily-detectable preparations for combat, they can acheive decisive surprise with the forces they have on hand, and beat an American/RoK force that needs at least some time to prepare for battle.

                          Finally, if the North Koreans have a nuke - or if they can make us BELIEVE they have one - they may be able to buy their conventional forces some time by threatening to hit Japan if any American sorties fly from there, or any reinforcements come from the Marines on Okinawa or the fleet at Yokosuka and other naval bases in Japan. Japan knows what it is to be nuked, and a credible threat may serve to paralyze the Japanese, allowing North Korean forces time to drive down the peninsula with little or no interference from American forces that must stage from Japan.

                          The DPRK believes it's all a question of time. IF they can get to Pusan before they run out of smash and before they've been crippled by the 2nd ID and the better RoK formations...they feel they could make us sue for peace, especially if they have any large amount of Americans encircled or actually in the bag.

                          Remember, war is likely if the DPRK believes it can win, not whether we believe they'll lose. And like I said before...I can never tell just what the hell they're thinkin'.
                          Last edited by Bluesman; 11 Dec 04,, 12:08.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Bluesman
                            I believe that our casualties would be heavy, that most of the RoK would be overrun, and that the intensity of the fighting would ruin both parts of Korea.
                            And that is not what I would call successfully stopping an invasion.
                            No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                            I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                            even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                            He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Confed999
                              And that is not what I would call successfully stopping an invasion.
                              Then your position would be that the invasion of 1950 was not successfully stopped, either, because that is exactly what happened then.

                              We'd roll 'em back in the end (just like we did before), but the cost to both sides would be high. If we're not willing to pay those costs - if your measure of success at stopping any invasion of the South is avoiding those three conditions - then you've defined 'success' as unachievable, and we should surrender an hour after the North Koreans cross the DMZ.

                              Of course we'd be successful in stopping an invasion even if those conditions came to pass, so long as the DPRK forces didn't KEEP what they had overrun.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X