Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 140

Thread: North Korea nuke test

  1. #121
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Is there no way the US can take out NKorea's nukes, artillery, whatever the Nkoreans can throw at SKorea, before launching a full assault? Cruise missiles can precisely do that, take out C4ISR of the North. After that, drop leaflets urging NKorean soldiers to abandon the battle and surrender. It isn't easy, but that can be done.
    I am pretty sure most of their artillery sites near the border are protected by terrain first and then buried away in hardened mountain sites. I'm also sure they have been doing that for decades which I believe would make it damn near impossible to get them first before they get out into the open. Given their Soviet style centralized command structure that would be a weakness when it comes to relaying commands down the line. Yet, if they realize that, and I am sure they have then they have made allowances for that. If not then cut out Comm first and let the individual units operate on their own if they can.

  2. #122
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Posts
    2,197
    Quote Originally Posted by tbm3fan View Post
    I am pretty sure most of their artillery sites near the border are protected by terrain first and then buried away in hardened mountain sites. I'm also sure they have been doing that for decades which I believe would make it damn near impossible to get them first before they get out into the open. Given their Soviet style centralized command structure that would be a weakness when it comes to relaying commands down the line. Yet, if they realize that, and I am sure they have then they have made allowances for that. If not then cut out Comm first and let the individual units operate on their own if they can.
    How about bombing known nuke and artillery sites after cutting comms. Real-time satellite monitoring, and as soon as any movement is picked up, carry strikes again. Repeat. NKorea wil come down on its knees in a fortnight.

    Reckless game over the Korean Peninsula runs risk of real war

    Beijing is not able to persuade Washington or Pyongyang to back down at this time. It needs to make clear its stance to all sides and make them understand that when their actions jeopardize China's interests, China will respond with a firm hand.

    China should also make clear that if North Korea launches missiles that threaten US soil first and the US retaliates, China will stay neutral. If the US and South Korea carry out strikes and try to overthrow the North Korean regime and change the political pattern of the Korean Peninsula, China will prevent them from doing so.

  3. #123
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,233
    I'm wondering what the correct response to the potential salvo launch near Guam is.

    You can try to intercept them, but that gives China a nice peek at operational US interception capabilities. It also carries the risk of only intercepting some of the incoming missiles and jeopardizing allied confidence in US ABM systems.

    I consider the likelihood of a partial interception high, since the only US system really designed to deal with ICBMs is the GMD based in Alaska, and California. SM-3 Block IIA and THAAD interceptors don't really have the Δv to reliably target anything beyond an IRBM, although I have the leave open the possibility that they could potentially succeed against ICBMs that don't employ MaRVs.

    The other possibility is retaliatory strikes of some kind, although that opens the door to escalation and leaves the US at a disadvantage in the inevitable PR war.

  4. #124
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Posts
    2,197

  5. #125
    Regular
    Join Date
    27 Jan 17
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    I'm wondering what the correct response to the potential salvo launch near Guam is.

    You can try to intercept them, but that gives China a nice peek at operational US interception capabilities. It also carries the risk of only intercepting some of the incoming missiles and jeopardizing allied confidence in US ABM systems.

    I consider the likelihood of a partial interception high, since the only US system really designed to deal with ICBMs is the GMD based in Alaska, and California. SM-3 Block IIA and THAAD interceptors don't really have the Δv to reliably target anything beyond an IRBM, although I have the leave open the possibility that they could potentially succeed against ICBMs that don't employ MaRVs.

    The other possibility is retaliatory strikes of some kind, although that opens the door to escalation and leaves the US at a disadvantage in the inevitable PR war.

    If there is not a great deal of confidence that THAAD will be able to intercept, then I'd imagine the correct move would be a limited strike at the launch sites, or not responding at all to the launch directly, though that would encourage more of the same and breed some doubt, but doubt is not the same as certainty.
    This move itself if North Korea follows through can be considered an escalation, so they can't really complain about that imo, or the US has an easy excuse at least. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

    Remember that continual escalation leads to North Korea's destruction, so while I wouldn't advocate going on a full offensive, targeted strikes on the launch sites (since if I remember correctly it takes them hours to fuel, and the US should have recon assets targeting known sites) combined with PR about responding to being targeted in any capacity, would seem about right.

    Kim should be more hesitant to escalate to full hostilities than the US if he is rational.

    Of course, this requires the president to have backbone and be prepared to own the consequences if Kim turns out to be an irrational actor, and assumes assets are ready and able to follow through. If not, then I'd advocate responding tit for tat. military exercises with training missiles landing close to North Korea. (announce it will happen in advance).
    Last edited by LongLurker; 11 Aug 17, at 17:20.

  6. #126
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,032
    If BigFella is correct about Kim not being stupid then I would tell him to treat Trump as a chew toy. Throw out the most outrageous statements at him, as bait, and he is sure to take the bait and respond. He can't help it since he is practically Palov's dog personified. Doing that Kim could have fun and needle him for the next 3 1/2 years.

  7. #127
    Senior Contributor Amled's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Sep 04
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    1,445
    The present face off between the US and North Korea is reminiscent of an old fashioned game of chicken. Where two idiots set themselves in their cars at opposite ends of a road and head towards each other at full speed where the one who breaks off first is the “chicken”!
    Now Tiny Kim and his family have been playing this game for the last three generations and can be considered “old hands” at the game. That said, this time they are up against a total amateur.
    Now there is an old saw that that states that the one thing a true master of a discipline fears is the amateur/novice because they and their actions are unpredictable!
    I’m just wondering if Tiny Kim and his cronies are aware of this factum
    When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin

  8. #128
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,530
    Quote Originally Posted by tbm3fan View Post
    I am pretty sure most of their artillery sites near the border are protected by terrain first and then buried away in hardened mountain sites. I'm also sure they have been doing that for decades which I believe would make it damn near impossible to get them first before they get out into the open. Given their Soviet style centralized command structure that would be a weakness when it comes to relaying commands down the line. Yet, if they realize that, and I am sure they have then they have made allowances for that. If not then cut out Comm first and let the individual units operate on their own if they can.
    They've been digging for decades they haven't been practicing. They are buried deep but they need exits. They are protected by terrain but not from above.

    At the end of the day they have a limited amount of usable artillery on a limited slip of land that's now been under constant surveillance for decades, now with increasingly good sensors and increasingly good analysis by machine vision.

    In an actual war they will be done for pretty quick. The real problem is that Seoul is target rich.

    When Trump says "lock and loaded" and "fury and fire" he's not kidding. The military option is there. They've probably been preparing expensively and it's probably not exactly what anyone outside the military expects.

    At some point you are confronted with a problem where you have to say to yourself: this is damn expensive but I have to pay. A fully nuclear NK is that problem for the US.

  9. #129
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,499
    Quote Originally Posted by tbm3fan View Post
    I am pretty sure most of their artillery sites near the border are protected by terrain first and then buried away in hardened mountain sites. I'm also sure they have been doing that for decades which I believe would make it damn near impossible to get them first before they get out into the open. Given their Soviet style centralized command structure that would be a weakness when it comes to relaying commands down the line. Yet, if they realize that, and I am sure they have then they have made allowances for that. If not then cut out Comm first and let the individual units operate on their own if they can.
    Each B2 bomber can carry 80 JDAM's with a demonstrated ability to strike multiple targets per strike with 2-3 bombs each. Taking out the HARTS that cana ctually reach Seoul is well within US capabilities. Border communities within range of normal artillery are in far more danger. 8 B-2's is probably enough to take out the HARTS, nuclear sites and ICBM launch sites.

  10. #130
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,032
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Each B2 bomber can carry 80 JDAM's with a demonstrated ability to strike multiple targets per strike with 2-3 bombs each. Taking out the HARTS that cana ctually reach Seoul is well within US capabilities. Border communities within range of normal artillery are in far more danger. 8 B-2's is probably enough to take out the HARTS, nuclear sites and ICBM launch sites.
    I'm no expert but then there is your tendency to be wrong regarding numbers and abilities I am going to guess their are hundreds upon hundreds of these sites real and decoys. I am also going to guess that these sites are deep into mountains. That being the case tell me how a smart bomb gets into that mountain? JDAM's are not for surface targets but more than that according to you? Maybe bunkers but sites in mountains I think not. The North has no doubt taken the lessons of the Korean War to heart. I would also guess how the North Vietnamese used air defenses around Hanoi has been improved on by the DPRK. I'm going to guess it is far more complicated than how you paint it besides not liking to be over confident in situations like this.

  11. #131
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    8,407
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Each B2 bomber can carry 80 JDAM's with a demonstrated ability to strike multiple targets per strike with 2-3 bombs each. Taking out the HARTS that cana ctually reach Seoul is well within US capabilities. Border communities within range of normal artillery are in far more danger. 8 B-2's is probably enough to take out the HARTS, nuclear sites and ICBM launch sites.
    That 80 number is for 500lb class bombs (Mk82/GBU 38). Not going to take out the hardened emplacements.

    GBU-28s, 5,000lb GPS guided "Bunker Buster" capacity is 8.

    Mountains are mostly granite. So you will have to target the doors of each firing position. Which are recessed.

    In the 80's there were over 500 HART sites capable of hitting Seoul. A HART site is not an individual weapon but a bunker complex for a artillery battery. So figure at least 6-8 bunkers with guns in them and another 6-8 bunkers for secondary/alternate positions. That's 4 thousand targets, just to take out the artillery/rocket threat. If they haven't built any more in 30 years.

    That doesn't include long range rocket sites, SAM/radar sites or those crazy airfields that they have dug into mountains.

    Not a pretty sight no matter how you slice the pie.
    Last edited by Gun Grape; 13 Aug 17, at 19:28.
    Its called Tourist Season. So why can't we shoot them?

  12. #132
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape View Post
    That 80 number is for 500lb class bombs (Mk82/GBU 38). Not going to take out the hardened emplacements.

    GBU-28s, 5,000lb GPS guided "Bunker Buster" capacity is 8.

    Mountains are mostly granite. So you will have to target the doors of each firing position. Which are recessed.

    In the 80's there were over 500 HART sites capable of hitting Seoul. A HART site is not an individual weapon but a bunker complex for a artillery battery. So figure at least 6-8 bunkers with guns in them and another 6-8 bunkers for secondary/alternate positions. That's 4 thousand targets, just to take out the artillery/rocket threat. If they haven't built any more in 30 years.

    That doesn't include long range rocket sites, SAM/radar sites or those crazy airfields that they have dug into mountains.

    Not a pretty sight no matter how you slice the pie.
    The only weapons NK has that can really reach Seoul are the 170mm Koskan SP guns (can only reach the edges of the city) and the 300mm MRLS KN09. Most of the rest of their admittedly massive artillery force has a range of 15-30 miles not enough to reach Seoul which is 35 miles from the DMZ and even farther from the HARTS. With the Sino-Soviet split, the USSR stop providing North Korea cutting edge technology. For decades it was the SCUDS and FROGS that would rain down on the city itself, but modern ABM technologies make these far less useful. The peak of North Korea's threat had receeded until the KN-09 was deployed.

    http://nautilus.org/publications/boo...n-north-korea/

    http://nautilus.org/publications/boo...n-north-korea/

  13. #133
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,499
    Quote Originally Posted by tbm3fan View Post
    I'm no expert but then there is your tendency to be wrong regarding numbers and abilities I am going to guess their are hundreds upon hundreds of these sites real and decoys. I am also going to guess that these sites are deep into mountains. That being the case tell me how a smart bomb gets into that mountain? JDAM's are not for surface targets but more than that according to you? Maybe bunkers but sites in mountains I think not. The North has no doubt taken the lessons of the Korean War to heart. I would also guess how the North Vietnamese used air defenses around Hanoi has been improved on by the DPRK. I'm going to guess it is far more complicated than how you paint it besides not liking to be over confident in situations like this.
    See my post to Gun Grape and use it to do your own research and then if I am wrong tell me where.

  14. #134
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    8,407
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    The only weapons NK has that can really reach Seoul are the 170mm Koskan SP guns (can only reach the edges of the city) and the 300mm MRLS KN09. Most of the rest of their admittedly massive artillery force has a range of 15-30 miles not enough to reach Seoul which is 35 miles from the DMZ and even farther from the HARTS. With the Sino-Soviet split, the USSR stop providing North Korea cutting edge technology. For decades it was the SCUDS and FROGS that would rain down on the city itself, but modern ABM technologies make these far less useful. The peak of North Korea's threat had receeded until the KN-09 was deployed.
    You must be aware that they produce their own modern Scuds. They also have the M1985/1991 240mm MLRS with a range of 60Km (37 miles).

    So here is the questions that a planner has to ask. There are an estimated 500+ Harts. We don't know where they all are. Which HARTs have systems that can hit Seoul? Where are the Hwasong-6 (Scuds)?
    How many South Korean lives are we willing to bet we get it right?

    How many ABM assets do we and the South Koreans have in the ROK that are within range to intercept missiles headed for Seoul? Would the US use the ones at Osan AB to defend Seoul? or would they hold them in reserve for the ones that WILL target the air base?

    The easiest way to combat a CBR radar (and I'll assume the same for AMB) is to overwhelm the system with targets. That's why in ODS and IF you saw a Corps ToT opening salvo from all arty assets. And no Counter-Battery fire from the Iraqis.

    The DPRK won't leisurely launch missiles a few at a time. Its a use it or lose it proposition.
    Look for an initial Rocket/artillery barrage where they fire everything at once. And then fire at will till they are destroyed or run out of ammo.
    Its called Tourist Season. So why can't we shoot them?

  15. #135
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape View Post
    You must be aware that they produce their own modern Scuds. They also have the M1985/1991 240mm MLRS with a range of 60Km (37 miles).

    So here is the questions that a planner has to ask. There are an estimated 500+ Harts. We don't know where they all are. Which HARTs have systems that can hit Seoul? Where are the Hwasong-6 (Scuds)?
    How many South Korean lives are we willing to bet we get it right?

    How many ABM assets do we and the South Koreans have in the ROK that are within range to intercept missiles headed for Seoul? Would the US use the ones at Osan AB to defend Seoul? or would they hold them in reserve for the ones that WILL target the air base?

    The easiest way to combat a CBR radar (and I'll assume the same for AMB) is to overwhelm the system with targets. That's why in ODS and IF you saw a Corps ToT opening salvo from all arty assets. And no Counter-Battery fire from the Iraqis.

    The DPRK won't leisurely launch missiles a few at a time. Its a use it or lose it proposition.
    Look for an initial Rocket/artillery barrage where they fire everything at once. And then fire at will till they are destroyed or run out of ammo.
    Based on wiki the RoKAF has 18 batteries of SAM's that can be used in the ABM role. To that the RoKN and US military add more assets. The allied forces in South Korea have the ability to intercept more targets than NK can likely loft at one time since all of their truly operational missiles are liquid fueled. However, my point wasn't about missiles,but about the HARTS. In so far as conventional artillery is concerned, Seoul is not in as much danger as feared, not that it is in no danger.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. North Korea Suspected of Planning Rocket Test
    By xinhui in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 19 Dec 12,, 08:25
  2. North Korea seen readying for new nuclear test
    By xrough in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07 May 09,, 10:36
  3. North Korea Cancels Test Launch.
    By Maxor in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 05 Apr 09,, 16:17
  4. North Korea claims nuclear test
    By Anoop C in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 289
    Last Post: 13 Mar 08,, 05:20
  5. North Korea test-fires 7th missile
    By ARH Gabriel in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 06 Jul 06,, 18:40

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •