Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.

[marauder2048]

All the launch equipment would be on the mobile launcher itself. The shelters would have no launch equipment at all. Why would they be counted?

If the shelters are intended to contain, prepare for launch and launch an ICBM they get counted.
Unless it's one of these schemes where you ride out the attack and then try to emerge, transit
and launch. If you want your land-base missile to be that unresponsive there are more survivable
schemes.

How is the price-to-attack lower? They would still have to target every single shelter, whether its empty or not. Could one SSBN target 1500+ shelters?

The worst case is that you have to reshuffle after an on-site. And even the steady state tracking of a
mobile launcher as it transits between shelters isn't massively challenging.

 

[Sferrin]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/japan-could-have-icbm-less-year-says-expert-24183

I don't think we solve the N. Korean problem until China tells them to disarm and that doesn't happen IMHO until S. Korea and Japan declare their intentions to have an independent nuclear arsenal with advanced delivery systems.

You'll love this. Know how North Korea got their TELs? China sold them to "move trees". I challenge anybody to find pictures of these things actually moving lumber in either North Korea or China.

"The TELs are thought to be based on WS-51200 frames made by Wanshan Special Vehicle in China,[6][10] possibly using technology from Minsk Automobile Plant.[7][14] UN investigators have concluded that the TELs were Chinese WS51200 trucks exported to North Korea for lumber transport. The North Koreans converted them into TELs by installing hydraulic gear and controls to erect a missile. Despite being converted to fire a missile, the truck would not be likely to survive damage from the rocket exhaust like a purpose-built TEL, making it a single-use launcher.[15]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KN-08
https://thediplomat.com/2017/10/us-treasury-designates-chinese-firm-that-transferred-icbm-toting-heavy-trucks-to-north-korea/
http://www.truckinginfo.com/blog/trailer-talk/story/2017/04/where-did-the-north-koreans-get-those-missile-toting-trucks.aspx

And while the very first ones might have had that issue (single use) it won't stay that way. That's right up there with China claiming they were purchasing Varyag to make a casino.

 

[bobbymike]

Or that their militarization of the SCS is the USs fault.

 

[Rickshaw]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/japan-could-have-icbm-less-year-says-expert-24183

I don't think we solve the N. Korean problem until China tells them to disarm and that doesn't happen IMHO until S. Korea and Japan declare their intentions to have an independent nuclear arsenal with advanced delivery systems.

I believe that the Koreans have memories of Japanese rule from 1910 to 1945 and that the Chinese have memories of the Second Sino-Japanese War from 1937 to 1945, so I doubt that the People's Republic of China would tell North Korea to disarm if Japan were to acquire an independent nuclear arsenal with or without advanced delivery systems. I also doubt that North Korea would abandon its nuclear weapons if United States forces were to withdraw from South Korea.

China finds a nuclear armed DPRK useful. The DPRK finds being nuclear armed gives them an added guarantee against "regime change" from the PRC/Russia/USA/Japan/ROK. Only the US appears overly alarmed about the DPRK having nuclear weapons for some obscure reason. Neither Japan or ROK are overly alarmed. It just adds a further complication to an already complicated relationship. The US Government's view that Kim Jung=Un is unreliable and "manic" is one based on the fact that he won't do what they dictate and he has the means to prevent them from enforcing it on them, except by economic means.

 

[starviking]

Only the US appears overly alarmed about the DPRK having nuclear weapons for some obscure reason. Neither Japan or ROK are overly alarmed.

As a resident of Japan, I can tell you that the Japanese are alarmed at the prospect of a nuclear-armed North Korea.

 

[Rickshaw]

I don't know how you define "overly alarmed." The United States is the only country with sufficient military power to launch a preventative war against North Korea for its nuclear program. Japan is holding missile attack drills and considering acquiring nuclear weapons. South Korea is considering acquiring nuclear weapons. The United States is not unique in wanting the Kim regime to abandon its development of nuclear warheads and missiles.

The point is, this is just another nation targeting the US. Already, the US is targeted by Russia and China. The DPRK has a tiny number of ICBMs (and will continue to do so for about another five years). Even with the missiles, they have a long way to go with developing a reliable re-entry vehicle. Yet, we have the people of Hawaii being panicked by what they have been told by their own Government and the MSM.

As to the US having the ability to, "launch a preventative war." Any war the US launches will have consequences, militarily, politically and economically. It may not be an attack on the continental US itself but it will more than likely be an attack on the ROK and Japan and all because the US Government is frightened of a tin-pot dictator.

If the US was to actually deal, honestly, with the DPRK's Government, this could all be stopped. However, Washington prefers to play for high stakes. Guess who'll be the first one into a shelter if the DPRK launches a missile?

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/01/23/as-trump-seeks-new-nuke-options-weapons-agency-head-warns-of-capacity-overload/

I won't bother to attach the nuke weapons programs we had in the 80's :'(

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/01/big-fears-of-small-nukes-overblown/?utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=60182453&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8MhzbjTQYwcjpTDUF7xm5zXmY4k5iyveLlf45XupePNt85ks_lDZRFueO3dzAUx2-KUEsPOtly35EDb-NpPunJfHT83A&_hsmi=60182453

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2018/01/23/pentagon-gives-senators-peek-at-trumps-nuclear-strategy-in-classified-brief/

 

[markfward]

If the US was to actually deal, honestly, with the DPRK's Government, this could all be stopped.

What, precisely, would be stopped? NorK's nuclear weapons program? Why would they stop? You've acknowledged some of the advantages nuclear weapons conceivably have for a rogue nation (e.g. regime survivability). They get a Big Boy seat at the diplomatic table with nuclear weapons. What could America offer North Korea that would make them want to alter their course — surely not a lifting of the luxury goods sanctions...

 

[Sferrin]

This thread is about nuclear weapons not, as Kman would have it, politics. All political posts in this topic are being reported. If politics need to be discussed go create a new topic.

 

[bobbymike]

This thread is about nuclear weapons not, as Kman would have it, politics. All political posts in this topic are being reported. If politics need to be discussed go create a new topic.

Well surprise, surprise who's derailing another thread :

http://aviationweek.com/defense/russia-s-doomsday-torpedo-third-strike-weapon?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20180125_AW-05_854&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=13353&utm_medium=email&elq2=3800ccffc2db4e63b2be7de1be6eb4a2

 

[kaiserd]

This thread is about nuclear weapons not, as Kman would have it, politics. All political posts in this topic are being reported. If politics need to be discussed go create a new topic.

Well surprise, surprise who's derailing another thread :

http://aviationweek.com/defense/russia-s-doomsday-torpedo-third-strike-weapon?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20180125_AW-05_854&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=13353&utm_medium=email&elq2=3800ccffc2db4e63b2be7de1be6eb4a2

I would just note that you and sferrin are also making “political” posts (for example sferrin posts criticizing the PRC, etc. - I’m not looking to defend the PRC by the way).
There is a degree of double standards going on in respect of labeling opinions you don’t agree with as “political” but not bringing the same analysis to your own contributions.
However I do recognize that you are both making more efforts at restraining yourselves in this regard and I would suggest other contributors would try to do likewise.

 

[markfward]

http://aviationweek.com/defense/russia-s-doomsday-torpedo-third-strike-weapon?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20180125_AW-05_854&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=13353&utm_medium=email&elq2=3800ccffc2db4e63b2be7de1be6eb4a2

One wonders if an enterprising manager at Sarov dusted off the plans for the T-15 (and Sakharov's proposed successor), or if this had been on the back burner for all these years, or..?

 

[bobbymike]

https://news.usni.org/2018/01/23/report-congress-columbia-class-submarine-program-4

https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2018/01/24/interview-nuke-warhead-chief-talks-risk-of-nuclear-war/

http://airman.dodlive.mil/2018/01/23/the-state-of-u-s-strategic-command/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-case-for-tactical-u-s-nukes-1516836395

 

[Rickshaw]

Doomsday Clock moved closest to midnight since Cold War

 

[Sferrin]

This thread is about nuclear weapons not, as Kman would have it, politics. All political posts in this topic are being reported. If politics need to be discussed go create a new topic.

Well surprise, surprise who's derailing another thread :

http://aviationweek.com/defense/russia-s-doomsday-torpedo-third-strike-weapon?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20180125_AW-05_854&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=13353&utm_medium=email&elq2=3800ccffc2db4e63b2be7de1be6eb4a2

I would just note that you and sferrin are also making “political” posts (for example sferrin posts criticizing the PRC, etc. - I’m not looking to defend the PRC by the way).

Pointing out the systems China (or Russia, India, or NK) are fielding is not political. Saying "system X gives China the ability to strike anywhere in the South Pacific" is not political. Saying something like "China is going to use these nukes to cow her neighbors into submission" would be political. One is about the system(s), one is about the leadership. And yes, I'm going out of my way to reign in my natural tendencies rather than trying to push boundaries (or outright ignore them repeatedly) like one or two others.

 

[kaiserd]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/japan-could-have-icbm-less-year-says-expert-24183

I don't think we solve the N. Korean problem until China tells them to disarm and that doesn't happen IMHO until S. Korea and Japan declare their intentions to have an independent nuclear arsenal with advanced delivery systems.

You'll love this. Know how North Korea got their TELs? China sold them to "move trees". I challenge anybody to find pictures of these things actually moving lumber in either North Korea or China.

"The TELs are thought to be based on WS-51200 frames made by Wanshan Special Vehicle in China,[6][10] possibly using technology from Minsk Automobile Plant.[7][14] UN investigators have concluded that the TELs were Chinese WS51200 trucks exported to North Korea for lumber transport. The North Koreans converted them into TELs by installing hydraulic gear and controls to erect a missile. Despite being converted to fire a missile, the truck would not be likely to survive damage from the rocket exhaust like a purpose-built TEL, making it a single-use launcher.[15]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KN-08
https://thediplomat.com/2017/10/us-treasury-designates-chinese-firm-that-transferred-icbm-toting-heavy-trucks-to-north-korea/
http://www.truckinginfo.com/blog/trailer-talk/story/2017/04/where-did-the-north-koreans-get-those-missile-toting-trucks.aspx

And while the very first ones might have had that issue (single use) it won't stay that way. That's right up there with China claiming they were purchasing Varyag to make a casino.

Further to Sferrins latest comments I would point to above.
I’m not looking for an argument, simply suggesting we all look extra critically at our own comments before we post them and try extra hard to resist the temptation to label comments “political” that we happen not to agree with.

 

[Sferrin]

To your point above, the post quoted was directly about the North Korean TELs and how they got them. I'm not sure how that makes it "political" other than the implication that China knew what North Korea was going to do with them and supplied them anyway. And that they're not used for moving trees. Anywhere. (Again, that's not political, that's a statement of fact.)

 

[Rickshaw]

To your point above, the post quoted was directly about the North Korean TELs and how they got them. I'm not sure how that makes it "political" other than the implication that China knew what North Korea was going to do with them and supplied them anyway. And that they're not used for moving trees. Anywhere. (Again, that's not political, that's a statement of fact.)

Actually, that is a statement of conjecture on your part. You have no evidence that the Chinese knew anything about what the DPRK was going to use it's trucks for. They may have suspected but there is nothing to indicate that they specifically knew. That you fail to recognise that suggests what about your viewpoint?

 

[kaiserd]

To your point above, the post quoted was directly about the North Korean TELs and how they got them. I'm not sure how that makes it "political" other than the implication that China knew what North Korea was going to do with them and supplied them anyway. And that they're not used for moving trees. Anywhere. (Again, that's not political, that's a statement of fact.)

Actually, that is a statement of conjecture on your part. You have no evidence that the Chinese knew anything about what the DPRK was going to use it's trucks for. They may have suspected but there is nothing to indicate that they specifically knew. That you fail to recognise that suggests what about your viewpoint?

It’s simpler than that.
Criticizing (justly or unjustly) the actions and policies of the government of the PRC is self evidently political in nature.
In addition Sferrin and Bobbymike have both been very keen to close down comments on the actions and the policies of the US government by labeling them “political”.
The contradiction and inconsistency is very self-evident.
Again I’m not looking for an argument, I would only add that while it may not be possible to completely avoid politics in discussions on this topic we should all be extra self-critical on and restrained in our own comments and be wary of and watchful for any parties who may try to use the label of “political” to silence views they don’t agree with while promoting their own.

 

[Sferrin]

To your point above, the post quoted was directly about the North Korean TELs and how they got them. I'm not sure how that makes it "political" other than the implication that China knew what North Korea was going to do with them and supplied them anyway. And that they're not used for moving trees. Anywhere. (Again, that's not political, that's a statement of fact.)

Actually, that is a statement of conjecture on your part. You have no evidence that the Chinese knew anything about what the DPRK was going to use it's trucks for. They may have suspected but there is nothing to indicate that they specifically knew. That you fail to recognise that suggests what about your viewpoint?

Given they're not used to haul wood in China why would they think NK would use them for that? You can call it "conjecture" all you like but it would take an astonishing pair of rose-colored glasses to think China believed North Korea would use them to haul wood. However I will note that you're not interested in the TELs themselves, or their acquisition, but only in arguing- again.

 

[Sferrin]

To your point above, the post quoted was directly about the North Korean TELs and how they got them. I'm not sure how that makes it "political" other than the implication that China knew what North Korea was going to do with them and supplied them anyway. And that they're not used for moving trees. Anywhere. (Again, that's not political, that's a statement of fact.)

Actually, that is a statement of conjecture on your part. You have no evidence that the Chinese knew anything about what the DPRK was going to use it's trucks for. They may have suspected but there is nothing to indicate that they specifically knew. That you fail to recognise that suggests what about your viewpoint?

It’s simpler than that.
Criticizing (justly or unjustly) the actions and policies of the government of the PRC is self evidently political in nature.
In addition Sferrin and Bobbymike have both been very keen to close down comments on the actions and the policies of the US government by labeling them “political”.

Because "actions and policies of the US government" are, by definition, political. Did you really not know that? To repeat:

Pointing out the systems China (or Russia, India, or NK) are fielding is not political. Saying "system X gives China the ability to strike anywhere in the South Pacific" is not political. Saying something like "China is going to use these nukes to cow her neighbors into submission" would be political. One is about the system(s), and their abilities, one is about the leadership and its intent. This topic is about the former, not the latter.

 

[bobbymike]

To your point above, the post quoted was directly about the North Korean TELs and how they got them. I'm not sure how that makes it "political" other than the implication that China knew what North Korea was going to do with them and supplied them anyway. And that they're not used for moving trees. Anywhere. (Again, that's not political, that's a statement of fact.)

Actually, that is a statement of conjecture on your part. You have no evidence that the Chinese knew anything about what the DPRK was going to use it's trucks for. They may have suspected but there is nothing to indicate that they specifically knew. That you fail to recognise that suggests what about your viewpoint?

It’s simpler than that.
Criticizing (justly or unjustly) the actions and policies of the government of the PRC is self evidently political in nature.
In addition Sferrin and Bobbymike have both been very keen to close down comments on the actions and the policies of the US government by labeling them “political”.

Because "actions and policies of the US government" are, by definition, political. Did you really not know that?

Scott at this point I think you've made it perfectly clear - even notifying me about posts deemed to political for this thread - what constitutes an acceptable post, yet they insist on nattering away like a old lady sewing circle on every perceived slight or transgression.

Hey guys here it is again:
1) The thread is to limit conversation to nuclear systems, strategies, weapons, etc.
2) It is not to be political
and
3) IT IS RECOGNIZED number 2) is difficult with nukes most of the time inextricably linked with politics BUT the intent of the thread is 1) so LET'S DO the best we can.

 

[Rickshaw]

To your point above, the post quoted was directly about the North Korean TELs and how they got them. I'm not sure how that makes it "political" other than the implication that China knew what North Korea was going to do with them and supplied them anyway. And that they're not used for moving trees. Anywhere. (Again, that's not political, that's a statement of fact.)

Actually, that is a statement of conjecture on your part. You have no evidence that the Chinese knew anything about what the DPRK was going to use it's trucks for. They may have suspected but there is nothing to indicate that they specifically knew. That you fail to recognise that suggests what about your viewpoint?

Given they're not used to haul wood in China why would they think NK would use them for that? You can call it "conjecture" all you like but it would take an astonishing pair of rose-colored glasses to think China believed North Korea would use them to haul wood. However I will note that you're not interested in the TELs themselves, or their acquisition, but only in arguing- again.

It still remains "conjecture" on your part. You have absolutely no evidence otherwise. You are making it up because of your prejudice against the PRC. I am not defending the PRC merely pointing out your hypocrisy.

 

[marauder2048]

It still remains "conjecture" on your part. You have absolutely no evidence otherwise. You are making it up because of your prejudice against the PRC. I am not defending the PRC merely pointing out your hypocrisy.

The PRC's long history of MTCR Category II export violations (e.g. would-be TELs)
is one reason they've been refused formal MTCR membership.

There's no evidence they've cleaned up their act so the burden of proof is on them.

 

[Rickshaw]

It still remains "conjecture" on your part. You have absolutely no evidence otherwise. You are making it up because of your prejudice against the PRC. I am not defending the PRC merely pointing out your hypocrisy.

The PRC's long history of MTCR Category II export violations (e.g. would-be TELs)
is one reason they've been refused formal MTCR membership.

There's no evidence they've cleaned up their act so the burden of proof is on them.

The US tries to prevent the proliferation of equipment which is freely available on the open market, when itself is guilt of proliferating entire nuclear systems (ie Pakistan, Israel). Smacks of hypocrisy to me.

 

[marauder2048]

The US tries to prevent the proliferation of equipment which is freely available on the open market

Not from MTCR members. There are reasons the PRC is not a member.

when itself is guilt of proliferating entire nuclear systems (ie Pakistan, Israel). Smacks of hypocrisy to me.

The Israeli bomb is French and the Pakistani bomb is Chinese. Not sure how the US figures in this
beyond Atoms For Peace research/power generation reactors.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Time for a break for this topic...