US Invasion to North Korea

[BlondieBC]

Short range system tests have worked. Their multi-stage rocket system that is capable of reaching the US has not. Every test to date has resulted in a break up shortly after launch.

OK, so are you conceding they have a rocket able to reach 100 KM altitude and carry a 1000 kg warhead? Straight up is literally fine. I have show you can build a small enough fission device with 1950 technology to fit on the missile. Explode at about 100KM and you have your east Asia EMP that shuts down the powergrid for 1200-1500 km in all directions.

Yes there longer range missiles have not worked well, but how sure are you the next one will not. Remember the cost. This is not some 1000KG warhead hitting Seattle if you are wrong. It will largely mean abandoning the Western USA for years.

More than enough here for a MAD strategy. And IMO, the fact that after NK had a couple of bombs, GWB stopped talking about attacking them shows they had enough MAD to be effective.

 

[ModernKiwi]

How do North Korea know the next one will? Staking your countries future on the possibility that your deterent can reach somewhere that your primary foe will care about?

As for the FOBS type systems, those are pretty much the ideal targets for THAAD and AEGIS based defense systems. Once again, do you think the North Koreans would be daft enough to stake their survival on an unreliable system?

EDIT: Also of course one has to question the sanity of an operation that detonates an EMP blast over your own head and also badly damages the only possible ally (China) you are likely to have.

 

[Hipsterredneck556]

One #1, I think you are missing the point. It is not a complicated device. The USA had one in the weight range in the 1940's. T-1. And there is nothing that has to be precise. We are talking a simple fission device explode at about 100 KM altitude. These weapons could have been used in the 1940's if people understood EMP. You can do this low tech all the way with 1950 technology. I linked some missiles early and source. Do you have a source for your information?

One #2, your statement contradicts every analysis I have read. Do you have a source?
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html

You got a source for yer artillery statement?

I am not talking about the complexity of the physics package. I am talking about all the other shit in a nuclear warhead. It takes alot of very complicated and very precise electronic components to make a nuke go boom. Even more to it to detonate at a specific altitude and location. All of that has to be crammed into a small (specific to the model of missile) space. Then it has to be made to survive the acceleration of launch, redundant systems, ect. It is unlikely that the Norks could pull all of that off.

 

[spunkychariot]

Whoa there, just hold on a second there. If you browse Chinese forums, you often find that the average Chinese man isn't too fond of North Korea, the Kims (our glorious fat leader), or for the fact the Vietnamese and Korean wars. Even the ultra-nationalists, the anti-westerners, and the racial supremacists don't like NK's perceived erratic and disloyal behaviour.

The PRC supports NK, but I doubt they would jeopardize their economic gains to support NK directly.

And as for Russia? NK was the outback 60 years ago, and it hasn't changed since.

Maybe the average Chinese man isn't too fond of North Korea but what about the Communist Party that controls the nation? It's just that I think that China is embodied in the CCP that controls it's affairs and that these elite politicians still think that North Korea is its buffer state against Western powers just like the Eastern bloc was the buffer zone for the USSR. The CCP could opt out of saving NK from imploding on itself and save the US from and itself from spending billions on aid to a corrupt country but it hasn't.

As for Russia, North Korea has been it's rotten neighbor. And as I think of it again, I agree that Russia doesn't have a stake in NK as much as any country has.

 

[BlondieBC]

Edit: Removed double post.

How do North Korea know the next one will? Staking your countries future on the possibility that your deterent can reach somewhere that your primary foe will care about?

As for the FOBS type systems, those are pretty much the ideal targets for THAAD and AEGIS based defense systems. Once again, do you think the North Koreans would be daft enough to stake their survival on an unreliable system?

EDIT: Also of course one has to question the sanity of an operation that detonates an EMP blast over your own head and also badly damages the only possible ally (China) you are likely to have.

Your Analysis is flawed. Lets work through Kim's perspective.

Do not let perfection become the enemy of the good. Yes, Kim would love to have 200 advance nuclear weapons as good as what the USA has. He would love to have some of our cruise missiles, ICBM or other technology. He is diligently working on improving.

He knows he can't win a war, but does not want to leave power. The USA public threatened to attack him (Axis of Evil). For a long time, the ability to destroy Seoul and Russia/China allies were enough. When GWB threatened him, it was obvious he needed more. You can only destroy Seoul once. No other targets within easy gun range of great value.

So now, what does he do to lessen the threat. Explode nuclear weapon. GWB threatening speeches stopped. I can't think of Obama bringing the issue up in "We need to attack NK". Clear win for Kim. Saddam is dead, Kim's son is in power. Now to how to use them, the best way possible.

Kim exploding EMP overhead is similar to Russian deadhand system. Both crazy, but make sense in nuclear deterrent world. China can't afford to allow USA to attack, since it also loses so much. Strategic error on China part to allow Kim to have weapons. I can't explain it, beside to say China helped Pakistan, and a India/Pakistan EMP would also go over border into China.

Also, extra benefits. NK has very small power grid. Old mechanical tanks largely immune. SK has modern infrastructure. Just immoblizing all the cars in SK has a noticeable military value. So does lack of running water and a huge refugee stream.

Also, EMP makes SK and Japan apply pressure to USA to attack. Attacking cities directly also has similar effect, and maybe once Kim has enough Nukes to reach USA, he changes target planning. But this change is years away.

As Kim's missiles get longer range, their accuracy goes down. A 10 Kiloton bomb missing Seattle by 40 miles does nothing. EMP missing by 40 miles is devastating. In some ways, it is his only choice. Same analysis on Pearl Harbor. Missing by few miles or 10's of miles make strike of little importance.

For Aegis, I am not sure they are any easier to hit than a nuclear weapon target for a ground burst. And our anti-missile shield misses more often than it hits, even when it knows the exact path days in advance. Sure, it might stop the Seattle shot. But it might not. It is not perfect, but lets assume for a second that the USA official assessment is there is a 2% chance the Seattle attack works. It still has deterrence effect.

And to the one over NK, this is part of the reason you shoot it straight up. It makes it a lot harder to hit. The Aegis systems have limited range. And even if the Aegis is in range, the counter shot has to travel farther than if I try to shoot it towards Japan, over the ship. Now again, as his technology improves, he may well change the location. There is a location where the EMP would effect Japan but not China. But the same uncertainties you and others have talked about makes this less likely. Not only must he be sure he can hit and we can't shoot down over water. He has to correctly model an EMP burst without access to the real data on the USA or USSR tests.

Kim would prefer better weapons, but you fight wars with the weapons you have, not what you would like to have. And NK spending a fortune on additional missile development indicates that Kim sees issues with his weapons systems.

 

[Hipsterredneck556]

Edit: Removed double post.




Your Analysis is flawed. Lets work through Kim's perspective.

Do not let perfection become the enemy of the good. Yes, Kim would love to have 200 advance nuclear weapons as good as what the USA has. He would love to have some of our cruise missiles, ICBM or other technology. He is diligently working on improving.

He knows he can't win a war, but does not want to leave power. The USA public threatened to attack him (Axis of Evil). For a long time, the ability to destroy Seoul and Russia/China allies were enough. When GWB threatened him, it was obvious he needed more. You can only destroy Seoul once. No other targets within easy gun range of great value.

So now, what does he do to lessen the threat. Explode nuclear weapon. GWB threatening speeches stopped. I can't think of Obama bringing the issue up in "We need to attack NK". Clear win for Kim. Saddam is dead, Kim's son is in power. Now to how to use them, the best way possible.

Kim exploding EMP overhead is similar to Russian deadhand system. Both crazy, but make sense in nuclear deterrent world. China can't afford to allow USA to attack, since it also loses so much. Strategic error on China part to allow Kim to have weapons. I can't explain it, beside to say China helped Pakistan, and a India/Pakistan EMP would also go over border into China.

Also, extra benefits. NK has very small power grid. Old mechanical tanks largely immune. SK has modern infrastructure. Just immoblizing all the cars in SK has a noticeable military value. So does lack of running water and a huge refugee stream.

Also, EMP makes SK and Japan apply pressure to USA to attack. Attacking cities directly also has similar effect, and maybe once Kim has enough Nukes to reach USA, he changes target planning. But this change is years away.

As Kim's missiles get longer range, their accuracy goes down. A 10 Kiloton bomb missing Seattle by 40 miles does nothing. EMP missing by 40 miles is devastating. In some ways, it is his only choice. Same analysis on Pearl Harbor. Missing by few miles or 10's of miles make strike of little importance.

For Aegis, I am not sure they are any easier to hit than a nuclear weapon target for a ground burst. And our anti-missile shield misses more often than it hits, even when it knows the exact path days in advance. Sure, it might stop the Seattle shot. But it might not. It is not perfect, but lets assume for a second that the USA official assessment is there is a 2% chance the Seattle attack works. It still has deterrence effect.

And to the one over NK, this is part of the reason you shoot it straight up. It makes it a lot harder to hit. The Aegis systems have limited range. And even if the Aegis is in range, the counter shot has to travel farther than if I try to shoot it towards Japan, over the ship. Now again, as his technology improves, he may well change the location. There is a location where the EMP would effect Japan but not China. But the same uncertainties you and others have talked about makes this less likely. Not only must he be sure he can hit and we can't shoot down over water. He has to correctly model an EMP burst without access to the real data on the USA or USSR tests.

Kim would prefer better weapons, but you fight wars with the weapons you have, not what you would like to have. And NK spending a fortune on additional missile development indicates that Kim sees issues with his weapons systems.

You seem awfully sure that the nefarious Papa Jong developed a "Glorious People's Revolutionary EMP doomsday plot". You have any proof of this Kimche dead-hand apparatus?

By the way, you are still overlooking the fact that the Norks DON'T HAVE A WORKING MISSILE WARHEAD. AND THAT THEY COULDN'T SHELL SEOUL INTO THE GROUND. AND THAT THE ANY MAJOR NAVY IN THE REGION COULD INTERCEPT THE MISSILE!!!

 

[ModernKiwi]

Nope sorry but that's gibberish. Lets assume that North Korea has 4 warheads at the moment (not unreasonable) and that their long range missiles have (based on test results) a 25% reliability - seems overstated but I'll be a pessimist. That's a vast chance that you can launch the lot and have complete failure. Not only have you given away the game, you've lost the lot. 4 warheads you can detonate over South Korea is a game changer. 4 warheads you can't rely upon delivering at all is worthless.

In addition, North Korea has yet to demonstrate any kind of MIRV capability. That means their missiles are on a ballistic path - whether fired towards Hawaii, Seattle or Japan. Ballistic paths are easy to intercept. Both the USSR and US have been capable of doing so since the 1960's. It was the introduction of MIRV's that made their ballistic missile defence programs of that era no longer worth implimenting, but North Korea's primative systems are in fact exactly the type of target that can be dealt with.

 

[Unconsensual]

Maybe the average Chinese man isn't too fond of North Korea but what about the Communist Party that controls the nation? It's just that I think that China is embodied in the CCP that controls it's affairs and that these elite politicians still think that North Korea is its buffer state against Western powers just like the Eastern bloc was the buffer zone for the USSR. The CCP could opt out of saving NK from imploding on itself and save the US from and itself from spending billions on aid to a corrupt country but it hasn't.

Well if you know the elites so well you would know that the thing they fear most is homelessness and unemployment, since it calls into question a main pillar of their legitimacy; economic development.

The second thing would be Han territorial integrity, since it would call into question their legitimacy as the protectors against foreigners.

There's nothing about PRC foreign policy, it's not really tied to their legitimacy. Your claim about prestige and ideology is incorrect, the current generation of leaders are 2 generations removed from the ideologues back then and show no sign of sharing the same ideals.

The USA has sent carrier groups to the shores of China, it flies spy planes in the Taiwan strait, it has killed Chinese diplomats in Serbia, it regularly insults Chinese human rights records, it has American troops on the Chinese border in Afghanistan, and the PRC has returned nothing but harsh words.

So why given the past record of "we're pissed, we're humiliated, but we don't want to fight you" would things suddenly change?

Why would China stand the loss of face with all those but not NK?

This reminds of the those bad Russian WWIII plots where the only explanation for something crazy happening is "well they're nuts".

To rephrase the question, why would the PRC choose NK over SK, Japan, international prestige, and America?

 

[Gunnarnz]

One #2, your statement contradicts every analysis I have read. Do you have a source?

If you're referring to the artillery, you can do the research yourself. Start by looking up how far Seoul is from the DMZ (35 miles, or something over 50km). Then look up the artillery that North Korea operates - this page would be a good start, and isn't known for being overly-excitable about such matters. You can then compare the maximum ranges of the artillery pieces with the ranges they would have to cover (50km), and ignore any that can't reach that far. That'll give you a rough idea of how many guns can reach Seoul, and their rate of fire and munitions they can employ.

If you don't feel like doing all that, you can take my word for the results of that little exercise. The short version is that the 170mm guns can probably do it, assuming they're serviceable and have rocket-assisted projectiles, but most of the rest can't. That gives at most 500 guns, with a rate of fire of at most 1 shell every 2.5 minutes.
I don't know how long it would take to hunt down those guns and destroy them with air strikes and counterbattery fire, but as I said before I strongly suspect all the fixed firing positions are already registered as targets. As a result I believe that inside an hour of hostilities commencing, the majority of those 170mm guns would be out of action for one reason or another. They don't have any armour, so their only protection is either not being detected (impossible if they're going to fire, counter-battery radar will handle that just fine) or the using the afore-mentioned protected firing positions. A potential third way would be to employ shoot-and-scoot tactics, but that would make them very vulnerable to attack aircraft and helicopters given the restricted area they would have to operate in. It also relies heavily on specialist survey teams to set up the fire positions they will displace to, and I'm not sure they have enough of them to make it practical.

As I said before, I don't expect US or South Korean attempts to silence the artillery to be completely successful - nothing ever is in war - but after the initial bombardment, I also don't expect the NK artillery to be able to do a great deal of damage to the city. Frankly, my opinion is they would be better served using the guns either for harassment and interdiction fire or to provide fire support to their line troops, who are going to badly need it.

 

[spunkychariot]

Well if you know the elites so well you would know that the thing they fear most is homelessness and unemployment, since it calls into question a main pillar of their legitimacy; economic development.

The second thing would be Han territorial integrity, since it would call into question their legitimacy as the protectors against foreigners.

There's nothing about PRC foreign policy, it's not really tied to their legitimacy. Your claim about prestige and ideology is incorrect, the current generation of leaders are 2 generations removed from the ideologues back then and show no sign of sharing the same ideals.

The USA has sent carrier groups to the shores of China, it flies spy planes in the Taiwan strait, it has killed Chinese diplomats in Serbia, it regularly insults Chinese human rights records, it has American troops on the Chinese border in Afghanistan, and the PRC has returned nothing but harsh words.

So why given the past record of "we're pissed, we're humiliated, but we don't want to fight you" would things suddenly change?

Why would China stand the loss of face with all those but not NK?

This reminds of the those bad Russian WWIII plots where the only explanation for something crazy happening is "well they're nuts".

To rephrase the question, why would the PRC choose NK over SK, Japan, international prestige, and America?

Yes, all governments are tied to their economies; a great example is Arab Spring in which many sources and the World Bank have stated that they believe high unemployment was the main cause of the revolts in Tunisia which eventually led to revolts in other Arab Nations. And that is the CCP's main priority in keeping its hold over power in China proper.

As for Han territorial integrity I assume you mean that China wants to hold on to Xinjiang, Tibet, and other territories they're currently disputing with India and Japan.

And I'll retract my arrogant statement that prestige and ideology. Though these generation of politicians don't share the same ideals, they still hold the general fact that the nation should be ruled under one party and that they should root out dissidents that are against the communist party.

All of your examples of the US openly antagonizing the Chinese and them doing nothing militarily to react are all true yet they all have something in common. That is they all did not have the US actively fighting a war against any nations that was supported by the Chinese. In the Korean war, the UN Coalition forces marched right through NK and the Chinese intervened. In the Vietnam War, the US sided with the Southern Vietnamese Republic and the Chinese backed the North with military and civilian aid. You could say that these examples are outdated and that they have no bearing over today's China which could be true. But both of these countries were in close proximity to China and they ended up using military means to respond. The reason why they didn't intervene in Afghanistan is that they also did not support the Taliban that ruled there.

Your question made me think more about how a US invasion would effect China's stance on NK. And my answer now is that it depends. From what I've seen on the news with China having nationalistic marches over Japan claiming islands in the South China Sea, a coalition involving Japan, US, and other allies invading North Korea would remind the Chinese people of Japan invading in WW2. If it were a UN mandated coalition of countries like in the Korean War, then in my opinion the Chinese will stand losing face because they will see that going against a coalition that massive would not be good for anyone. Their is a wide range of scenarios that effects Chinese opinions on NK from both the CCP and the citizens.

And I guess from the bad Russian WWIII plot statement you think that I meant that China would automatically get into a nuclear war if they intervened. Well, I guess I was too strong in pointing that out in my previous post.

I don't mean that China would go to nuclear war with the US, that would be a worst case scenario. But you should never rule out that the Chinese are going to support the NK through military aid and civilian aid just like they did with the Vietnamese. This could be done covertly or directly just like any proxy war would be. And if it fails then China would lose face but could regain it through some shrewd political maneuvering and/or through some more reforms. Examples of the CCP losing face is after the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. Even after those scandals the CCP still stands today through reforms and who can say they can't stand if they fail to help NK win.

 

[MattII]

For all the range of NK's missiles, the US can hit Pyongyang with Tomahawks from Hiroshima.

 

[BlondieBC]

You seem awfully sure that the nefarious Papa Jong developed a "Glorious People's Revolutionary EMP doomsday plot". You have any proof of this Kimche dead-hand apparatus?

By the way, you are still overlooking the fact that the Norks DON'T HAVE A WORKING MISSILE WARHEAD. AND THAT THEY COULDN'T SHELL SEOUL INTO THE GROUND. AND THAT THE ANY MAJOR NAVY IN THE REGION COULD INTERCEPT THE MISSILE!!!

Yet again you ask for a source while not providing any of your own. I provided a fairly long analysis of why I think this is Kim's strategy. It is partially source and partially analysis, which I laid out. I have shown you can make an EMP with 1950's technology. You state your position without details, logic, or source. I have no idea why you think they can't build a warhead. Perhaps you read it somewhere. Perhaps there is a technical detail I am missing. Perhaps it is just an opinion. Without more details there is no way to tell.

And "Doomsday Plot" is not what I am arguing. I am arguing for MAD to prevent the attack. If any leader of the 2000's was seeing "Doomsday", it was GWB. The Kim's appear to be happy to be the Monarchs of a terribly poor and isolated country.

 

[BlondieBC]

Nope sorry but that's gibberish. Lets assume that North Korea has 4 warheads at the moment (not unreasonable) and that their long range missiles have (based on test results) a 25% reliability - seems overstated but I'll be a pessimist. That's a vast chance that you can launch the lot and have complete failure. Not only have you given away the game, you've lost the lot. 4 warheads you can detonate over South Korea is a game changer. 4 warheads you can't rely upon delivering at all is worthless.

In addition, North Korea has yet to demonstrate any kind of MIRV capability. That means their missiles are on a ballistic path - whether fired towards Hawaii, Seattle or Japan. Ballistic paths are easy to intercept. Both the USSR and US have been capable of doing so since the 1960's. It was the introduction of MIRV's that made their ballistic missile defence programs of that era no longer worth implimenting, but North Korea's primative systems are in fact exactly the type of target that can be dealt with.

It is not gibberish. But let us assume you are correct for discussion purposes. They have 90% plus reliable short range missiles. We might shoot some down. Then they will simply use the shoot one straight up option with 2. This is a 99% chance of success before interception, which is unlikely. With an EMP missile with an area of effect of over 1000 kilometer, it can be shot an any direction. But ok, call it the USA kills 1 in 10, we get a 96% effective weapon. This leaves 2 for the USA and a 44% chance of success. And the USA misses 3/4 times on know tracks with anti-missile hits. So we are down to 1/3 chance of USA losing industrialization west of the Rockies. While a less perfect MAD strategy, it is still workable.

It does not take 20,000 warheads like the USSR or 2000 like Russia had to have a partially effective deterrent. The USSR in the Cuban Missile crisis had 3 effective missiles that could reach the USA and might get a few dozen bombers to target. Yet this small force had major restrictive impact on USA actions and made negotiations the preferred option for the USA.

As to "giving away the game", everyone knows that Kim will eventually lose in all scenarios. His only objective is to inflict enough damage to make it too costly to attack NK, or a modified MAD strategy. People mock Korea, but they have been successful since 1953. The USSR faded into the history books, but the Kims survive.

As to MIRV, we lack the ability to shoot down the missile on the way up. This means for the East Asia EMP, MIRV has not meaning. For a USA shot, I don't think you need full MIRV since at 100 miles up, you can just use simple dummies. And even if I am wrong on this point, the USA still misses single warheads on know tracks on a regular basis. It will be even harder in combat with the fog of war and not having weeks to plan. It is much like if you can't hit a target on an artillery range in peace time, you almost certainly miss in combat.

 

[BlondieBC]

If you're referring to the artillery, you can do the research yourself. Start by looking up how far Seoul is from the DMZ (35 miles, or something over 50km). Then look up the artillery that North Korea operates - this page would be a good start, and isn't known for being overly-excitable about such matters. You can then compare the maximum ranges of the artillery pieces with the ranges they would have to cover (50km), and ignore any that can't reach that far. That'll give you a rough idea of how many guns can reach Seoul, and their rate of fire and munitions they can employ.

If you don't feel like doing all that, you can take my word for the results of that little exercise. The short version is that the 170mm guns can probably do it, assuming they're serviceable and have rocket-assisted projectiles, but most of the rest can't. That gives at most 500 guns, with a rate of fire of at most 1 shell every 2.5 minutes.
I don't know how long it would take to hunt down those guns and destroy them with air strikes and counterbattery fire, but as I said before I strongly suspect all the fixed firing positions are already registered as targets. As a result I believe that inside an hour of hostilities commencing, the majority of those 170mm guns would be out of action for one reason or another. They don't have any armour, so their only protection is either not being detected (impossible if they're going to fire, counter-battery radar will handle that just fine) or the using the afore-mentioned protected firing positions. A potential third way would be to employ shoot-and-scoot tactics, but that would make them very vulnerable to attack aircraft and helicopters given the restricted area they would have to operate in. It also relies heavily on specialist survey teams to set up the fire positions they will displace to, and I'm not sure they have enough of them to make it practical.

As I said before, I don't expect US or South Korean attempts to silence the artillery to be completely successful - nothing ever is in war - but after the initial bombardment, I also don't expect the NK artillery to be able to do a great deal of damage to the city. Frankly, my opinion is they would be better served using the guns either for harassment and interdiction fire or to provide fire support to their line troops, who are going to badly need it.

Any particular information you though important on the site? You just reference a partial list of equipment. So?

You provided incorrect information. I looked on google maps, and it is about 7 km from the north most build up area of Greater Seoul to the border. It is about 25km from border to down town. So it is within range of artillery.

We also need to discuss Soviet doctrine where scuds/frogs are just longer range artillery. The shorter range stuff will engage the ground combat troops and the northern suburbs. As one head south, the South Koreans will use longer range artillery heading, the short range missiles. Just for example, a 240 MRL has a 45km range. This will get almost all of Seoul at the border, and can get half the city if 20km from the border. The USA gets 60km out of its 200mm MRL.

Add this to his 12-15 nuclear weapons, and it is a credible deterrent. The 42 from the source you provided seems high, but maybe it is correct. This would give him even better options because he can do both EMP and counter city strikes.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/nuke.htm

As of February 2005 Defense Intelligence Agency analysts were reported to believe that North Korea may already have produced as many as 12 to 15 nuclear weapons. This would imply that by the end of 2004 North Korea had produced somewhere between four and eight uranium bombs [on top of the seven or eight plutonium bombs already on hand]. The DIA's estimate was at the high end of an intelligence community-wide assessment of North Korea's nuclear arsenal completed in early 2005. The CIA lowballed the estimate at two to three bombs, which would suggest an assessment that the DPRK either had not reprocessed a significant amount of plutonium from the 8,000 spent fuel rods removed from storage in early 2003, or had not fabricated a significant number of weapons from whatever amount of plutonium had been reprocessed. The Department of Energy's analysis put North Korea's stockpile somewhere in between, which would be consistent with the roughly 7 or 8 plutonium bombs that could be produced from all existing plutonium stocks, with no uranium bombs.

If one assumes that the DPRK produced sufficient plutonium for eight bombs, and expended one of these bombs in a test in Pakistan in 1998, then as of 2005 their plutonium bomb inventory would be seven weapons. Taking the mid-point of the DIA's estimate of between four and eight uranium bombs, the plausible uranium bomb stockpile as of early 2005 would be six weapons, increasing at a rate of one bomb every two months. Thus the early 2005 stockpile would be 13 weapons, growing to about 20 weapons by the end of the year.

And why on earth should I take your word? Do you have verifiable expertise?

And by after the initial bombardment comment, are you conceding the initial bombardment will do a lot of damage?

 

[Gunnarnz]

Any particular information you though important on the site? You just reference a partial list of equipment. So?

Well, I was really referring to the list of artillery equipment the NK forces use. I thought the subject was a possible artillery bombardment of Seoul, so that was what seemed relevant. In case the import of this has escaped anyone, these are the types of weapons we could expect North Korea to use in such a scenario. Note that many of the artillery pieces mentioned require rocket-assisted or extended range munitions to achieve their listed maximum range - these are exotic munitions, and it's debatable what proportion of their ammunition load will consist of those types. A standard allocation would be about 1/4 - 1/3 exotic and the rest smoke, illum, and conventional HE (mostly HE), but we could expect that guns tasked with bombarding Seoul would be given a load of ammunition suitable for the task. So I'm comfortable with assuming that anything with the range to hit Seoul would have munitions suitable for the task, at least until they fire off their on-board ammunition loads.

You provided incorrect information. I looked on google maps, and it is about 7 km from the north most build up area of Greater Seoul to the border. It is about 25km from border to down town. So it is within range of artillery.

Circumstances force me to disagree with you. This is the google maps link I used, and the scale makes the distance look like about 35 km from the border to highway 100, and perhaps another 15km to the center of Seoul. So I think the 50km range figure is reasonable, given that a good proportion of the city will be even further away.

And why on earth should I take your word? Do you have verifiable expertise?

I was referring to the figures for distance from DMZ to Seoul, and the performance figures for the artillery pieces themselves. I thought that you might not want to go to the effort of looking up all that data yourself, most people in internet arguments prefer not to bother with such details.
But as it happens, I do have some expertise in the field. Back in the bad old days, I served as a forward observer for an artillery unit. This meant I had to have a certain amount of familiarity with the effects and capabilities of artillery, in order to provide accurate targeting data for the unit I was assigned to (and to effectively engage the targets I located). I spent more years than I really care to recall doing that job, and got quite good at it. So yes, I do know something about what artillery can and cannot be expected to do.

And by after the initial bombardment comment, are you conceding the initial bombardment will do a lot of damage?

Oh, it'll certainly do a fair bit of damage to buildings. If we assume about 300 guns being able to effectively target Seoul for an hour with a rate of fire of 2 rounds every 5 minutes (purely for the sake of argument, you understand) then we're talking over seven thousand rounds hitting the city, which is a pretty decent bombardment (for comparison, if I had called in a fire mission of 40 rounds against an infantry platoon in the open, that would have been reckoned fairly reasonable, although a little extravagant).
The thing is that a city is actually quite large, and is also not a very good artillery target - the shells will produce a lot of rubble but not many casualties, because the buildings will absorb most of the fragments that produce the majority of artillery casualties. It's usually not worth using light-caliber guns (anything below 120mm) against a target like that, because they just don't pack enough HE into the shells to achieve a good result against modern construction methods. Even mediums (150mm+) are pretty marginal. Rockets and heavy artillery (170mm+)are the only things with a real chance of doing much damage, and even then it's an up-hill struggle. And the more you pound it, the better cover it provides. Honestly, built-up areas like Seoul just aren't what artillery is best at killing.

If someone asked me to prepare an artillery fire plan against Seoul, I'd use the light and medium caliber guns - anything below 170mm - to plaster as much of the suburbs as they could reach as widely as possible, in the hopes of starting fires that would then spread. The heavies and rockets I'd set to strike as deep as they could for 5 or 10 minutes at their maximum rate of fire, and then change their positions quickly to hopefully avoid the counterbattery fire I know is on it's way. After that any that survive would be doing harassment and interdiction on the main transport routes, although MRLs can provide useful tactical fire support (in the unlikely event they survive long enough to be called in).
But I would not expect the North Korean artillery to last very long if the South Koreans and US make an effort to take it out, modern counterbattery radars make it very difficult to survive if you keep firing from the same position. Really, the best chance for the NK artillery to survive the first few hours is if the artillery bombardment is combined with a general offensive by their infantry and armour units across the DMZ. In that case the SK/US units will have a great many other jobs to do, and the NK artillery will slip down the priority list for a while.

 

[Hipsterredneck556]

It is not gibberish. But let us assume you are correct for discussion purposes. They have 90% plus reliable short range missiles. We might shoot some down. Then they will simply use the shoot one straight up option with 2. This is a 99% chance of success before interception, which is unlikely. With an EMP missile with an area of effect of over 1000 kilometer, it can be shot an any direction. But ok, call it the USA kills 1 in 10, we get a 96% effective weapon. This leaves 2 for the USA and a 44% chance of success. And the USA misses 3/4 times on know tracks with anti-missile hits. So we are down to 1/3 chance of USA losing industrialization west of the Rockies. While a less perfect MAD strategy, it is still workable.

It does not take 20,000 warheads like the USSR or 2000 like Russia had to have a partially effective deterrent. The USSR in the Cuban Missile crisis had 3 effective missiles that could reach the USA and might get a few dozen bombers to target. Yet this small force had major restrictive impact on USA actions and made negotiations the preferred option for the USA.

As to "giving away the game", everyone knows that Kim will eventually lose in all scenarios. His only objective is to inflict enough damage to make it too costly to attack NK, or a modified MAD strategy. People mock Korea, but they have been successful since 1953. The USSR faded into the history books, but the Kims survive.

As to MIRV, we lack the ability to shoot down the missile on the way up. This means for the East Asia EMP, MIRV has not meaning. For a USA shot, I don't think you need full MIRV since at 100 miles up, you can just use simple dummies. And even if I am wrong on this point, the USA still misses single warheads on know tracks on a regular basis. It will be even harder in combat with the fog of war and not having weeks to plan. It is much like if you can't hit a target on an artillery range in peace time, you almost certainly miss in combat.

No, it still is gibberish. You are completely dismissing American and Japanese missile defence capabilities. You are throwing statistics out there that make no sense. Not to mention, you have absolutely no proof that the Norks even have any sort of EMP plan like you have described.

 

[Derek Pullem]

It is not gibberish. But let us assume you are correct for discussion purposes. They have 90% plus reliable short range missiles. We might shoot some down. Then they will simply use the shoot one straight up option with 2. This is a 99% chance of success before interception, which is unlikely. With an EMP missile with an area of effect of over 1000 kilometer, it can be shot an any direction. But ok, call it the USA kills 1 in 10, we get a 96% effective weapon. This leaves 2 for the USA and a 44% chance of success. And the USA misses 3/4 times on know tracks with anti-missile hits. So we are down to 1/3 chance of USA losing industrialization west of the Rockies. While a less perfect MAD strategy, it is still workable.

It does not take 20,000 warheads like the USSR or 2000 like Russia had to have a partially effective deterrent. The USSR in the Cuban Missile crisis had 3 effective missiles that could reach the USA and might get a few dozen bombers to target. Yet this small force had major restrictive impact on USA actions and made negotiations the preferred option for the USA.

As to "giving away the game", everyone knows that Kim will eventually lose in all scenarios. His only objective is to inflict enough damage to make it too costly to attack NK, or a modified MAD strategy. People mock Korea, but they have been successful since 1953. The USSR faded into the history books, but the Kims survive.

As to MIRV, we lack the ability to shoot down the missile on the way up. This means for the East Asia EMP, MIRV has not meaning. For a USA shot, I don't think you need full MIRV since at 100 miles up, you can just use simple dummies. And even if I am wrong on this point, the USA still misses single warheads on know tracks on a regular basis. It will be even harder in combat with the fog of war and not having weeks to plan. It is much like if you can't hit a target on an artillery range in peace time, you almost certainly miss in combat.

HEMP can pose a serious threat to military systems when even a single high-altitude nuclear explosion occurs. In principle, even a new nuclear proliferator could execute such a strike. In practice, however, it seems unlikely that such a state would use one of its scarce warheads to inflict damage which must be considered secondary to the primary effects of blast, shock, and thermal pulse. Furthermore, a HEMP attack must use a relatively large warhead to be effective (perhaps on the order of one mega-ton), and new proliferators are unlikely to be able to construct such a device, much less make it small enough to be lofted to high altitude by a ballistic missile or space launcher. Finally, in a tactical situation such as was encountered in the Gulf War, an attack by Iraq against Coalition forces would have also been an attack by Iraq against its own communications, radar, missile, and power systems. EMP cannot be confined to only one �side� of the burst

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/emp.htm

 

[Unconsensual]

Snip

Eh close enough to my views. Personally I suspect the PRC will do what they are currently doing: bargain for leverage with NK. Extract some generous terms and Korean goodwill for dumping NK, maybe more for military assistance.

Mind you NK has pissed off the PRC plenty of times; one of which was not voting for the PRC so it failed to make it by one vote for FIFA in 06 or 08? They stopped oil shipments for two months for that, NK could've starved and froze without heating or fuel for tractors and trucks.

So extrapolating, there must be the mother of all FIFAs going on for the PRC to even consider helping NK kill south Koreans and Americans.

 

[UrbanRedneck]

I dont think China would want a united Korea on its border. Looking at history centuries ago Korea and China were bitter enemies similar to Vietnamese and Chinese.

Now its possible that over time South Koreans and Chinese will develop enough economic and cultural ties, and possible military, that the Chinese will no longer fear or hate Koreans and they might be open to a united Korea on their border and then they would drop their support of NK.

 

[Hipsterredneck556]

I dont think China would want a united Korea on its border. Looking at history centuries ago Korea and China were bitter enemies similar to Vietnamese and Chinese.

Now its possible that over time South Koreans and Chinese will develop enough economic and cultural ties, and possible military, that the Chinese will no longer fear or hate Koreans and they might be open to a united Korea on their border and then they would drop their support of NK.

I think one of the leaked US diplomatic cables indicated that the chinese would be accepting of Korea unified on ROK terms.