A serious discussion about the DPRK's Missile and Nuclear Ambitions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tangential but relevant IMO

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/10/19/solving_the_siege_of_seoul_112498.html
 
Kadija_Man said:
As I have been saying, the DPRK's missiles are unreliable and lack range to hit most of Australia or the US, if at all... Their problem is getting a missile that can reliably be fired and can reliably expect to hit what it is aimed at. That is still IMHO about five years off.

Youtube is full of early Atlas and Thor failures. Minuteman...not so much. Even if five years off, that just means we've got five years to do something definitive about the problem, not that we can sit on our hands for five more years. Personally, I'll bet we see a successful ICBM-range test within the year.
 
What are the estimates for the feasible production rate of ICBMs and warheads in North Korea?

sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
As I have been saying, the DPRK's missiles are unreliable and lack range to hit most of Australia or the US, if at all... Their problem is getting a missile that can reliably be fired and can reliably expect to hit what it is aimed at. That is still IMHO about five years off.

Youtube is full of early Atlas and Thor failures. Minuteman...not so much. Even if five years off, that just means we've got five years to do something definitive about the problem, not that we can sit on our hands for five more years. Personally, I'll bet we see a successful ICBM-range test within the year.

Policy responses are a different topic than estimating capability.
 
Evacuation of Seoul would create an undeniable signal to P'yong Y'ang that the balloon is about to go up. IF Kim Jung Un is as ruthless as he is routinely portrayed in the Western MSM, then he will not hesitate to attack. Better, in his estimation to go down fighting, causing as many casualties as possible than to submit with a whimper. However, that is a might big IF.

Five years is still five years. It allows a more measured response than the panic that el Presidente has created and largely stoked. Action, if necessary could be two to four years down the track. Negotiation is much more likely and much more fruitful. As distasteful as the idea of talking to Kim Jung Un is to some people, it appears to be the only way forward to actually achieve something.

The DPRK has, as Steve Bannon suggested, realistically, "there’s no military solution here, they got us.” Until some people recognise that the use of military force is limited in what it can actually achieve, and it's inability to actual prevent the DPRK from destroying a large number of people and a great deal of property. Does that mean we have to answer their ransom demands? No, not completely. Does that mean we are going to guarantee the existence of the Kim regime? No, it does not. What is required is a co-ordinated, comprehensive and extensive response.

What is clear though, is that a coalition is required and petty arguments will only prevent that from being created effectively.
 
Kadija_Man said:
Five years is still five years. It allows a more measured response than the panic that el Presidente has created and largely stoked. Action, if necessary could be two to four years down the track. Negotiation is much more likely and much more fruitful. As distasteful as the idea of talking to Kim Jung Un is to some people, it appears to be the only way forward to actually achieve something.

I don't see any reason to reward NK for their behavior. YMMV.
 
North Korea uses its long range missiles to reach USA, and dumb missiles with nuke warheads mounted on freighters near US waters in straight up trajectory and 300mi high hydrogen bomb bursts above their targets to use EMP and hopefully knock out USA, South Korean, (Japan and Australia's too?) power grids and that in itself would be their "victory." Accuracy less important than EMP which requires no sophisticated guidance systems.

Even if N Korea subsequently destroyed...

The worlds biggest (or second biggest) economy destroyed forever by a backwards, primitive, low tech North Korea that cannot even provide 24hr electricity to its citizens. Minimal investment, maximum damage.

Maybe North Korean strategy would also hope that the chaos would keep USA busy with failing power grids, nuke meltdowns, Mass USA rioting and a civil war would Keep USA dealing with internal problems, which would inevitably lead to other skirmishes (Iran, Israel, Syria, Taiwan, China, Ukraine, Russia) etc.
 
starviking said:
Kadija_Man said:
Five years is still five years.

Maybe for the US, but for SK and Japan?

Both are protected by the US Strategic Nuclear umbrella. Do you really believe that Kim Jong Un is going to risk the existence of the DPRK by threatening those two nations when he has no means to deter (if at all) the US? I don't.
 
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
Five years is still five years. It allows a more measured response than the panic that el Presidente has created and largely stoked. Action, if necessary could be two to four years down the track. Negotiation is much more likely and much more fruitful. As distasteful as the idea of talking to Kim Jung Un is to some people, it appears to be the only way forward to actually achieve something.

I don't see any reason to reward NK for their behavior. YMMV.

You may not. My fear is that el Presidente shares your viewpoint. Hopefully my fears prove groundless.
 
That was really fast.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom