North Korea

rebel rebel · 30 Jul 2017 at 17:46

It has to be said that since the new leader took over from his dad, he has made great progress. They used to be basically a joke nation giving off empty threats. Now they have rockets that can hit anywhere and it's not funny anymore.

Rroff · 30 Jul 2017 at 17:58

I think his dad was a bit more political lead, ideology second when it came to things like WMDs using them more for concessions and as a bargaining chip, etc. while the new leader seems to be much hotter on the military side (might be a natural things where he grew up buying into that ideology while for his forebearers it was much more of a means to and end) - some say he looks to places like Libya and Syria and doesn't want the same happening to him and if it does doesn't want to go out without striking some blows back.

rebel rebel · 30 Jul 2017 at 18:05

I get the feeling that he has inherited his grandfathers military mindset, where his dad was an out and lunatic. When you think of all the countries that tried to get wmds and failed, this young man has almost succeeded.

Xcitz · 30 Jul 2017 at 18:45

To be honest, I don't understand why everyone is so worried about North Korea.

Yes they *might* be able to miniaturise a nuclear warhead but even if they did, what's the chances of it making it to is target?.
One or two missiles one way compared to the complete barrage that'd be going in the other direction

Roar87 · 30 Jul 2017 at 19:02

Xcitz said:
To be honest, I don't understand why everyone is so worried about North Korea.

Yes they *might* be able to miniaturise a nuclear warhead but even if they did, what's the chances of it making it to is target?.
One or two missiles one way compared to the complete barrage that'd be going in the other direction

That's like saying you might be able to shoot me but lots of people will shoot you back, I'm still dead; and in this case thousands of Americans or Japanese could die.

StriderX · 30 Jul 2017 at 19:05

Gives 'em chance to test out the missile defence systems though, has to be worth it for that.

Rroff · 30 Jul 2017 at 19:05

Xcitz said:
To be honest, I don't understand why everyone is so worried about North Korea.

Yes they *might* be able to miniaturise a nuclear warhead but even if they did, what's the chances of it making it to is target?.
One or two missiles one way compared to the complete barrage that'd be going in the other direction

The US has a sophisticated ABM system that can engage 100s of warheads potentially but its not foolproof and 100s of nukes going back the other way isn't likely to happen except in the most extreme of circumstances. Nuclear weapons are to deter conventional warfare escalating to full on state on state affairs which could present an existential threat to one or the other - NK is a long way from ever presenting an existential threat to wider US interests let alone its homeland. Not to mention China and to a more limited extent Russia wouldn't be too happy with 100s of WMDs being used next door to their territories.

Also NK appear to be trying to develop a missile that can defeat counter-measures (or it might just be coincidental due to flaw development it isn't quite clear) which will be a worry - if they do perfect miniaturisation though it would also open up other delivery mechanisms to them.

StriderX · 30 Jul 2017 at 19:28

I wonder if they'll try to destroy the ISS, it'd be the only thing they can do that doesn't have a nuclear retaliation and they single-handedly annoy the three main contributors all at once.

It'd also be widely visible to billions of people (potentially).

rebel rebel · 31 Jul 2017 at 00:07

StriderX said:
I wonder if they'll try to destroy the ISS, it'd be the only thing they can do that doesn't have a nuclear retaliation and they single-handedly annoy the three main contributors all at once.

It'd also be widely visible to billions of people (potentially).

Would be a bold opening gambit!

Rroff · 31 Jul 2017 at 00:10

StriderX said:
I wonder if they'll try to destroy the ISS, it'd be the only thing they can do that doesn't have a nuclear retaliation and they single-handedly annoy the three main contributors all at once.

It'd also be widely visible to billions of people (potentially).

Doubt they'd do anything that upset their relations with Russia at the moment. I believe its one of the few places they are still able to export labour to openly and smuggle fuel from and crude to.

StriderX · 31 Jul 2017 at 00:13

Rroff said:
Doubt they'd do anything that upset their relations with Russia at the moment. I believe its one of the few places they are still able to export labour to openly and smuggle fuel from and crude to.

You think NK is a rational actor?

Rroff · 31 Jul 2017 at 00:17

StriderX said:
You think NK is a rational actor?

I believe there is method to their madness. I don't believe at this point in regard to Russia they will do anything to spite their face. They were pushed quite a long way before any backlash against China for instance.

MooMoo444 · 31 Jul 2017 at 07:46

How long before these provocations become a first strike. The world just can't sit and watch forever.

Roar87 · 31 Jul 2017 at 08:42

StriderX said:
I wonder if they'll try to destroy the ISS, it'd be the only thing they can do that doesn't have a nuclear retaliation and they single-handedly annoy the three main contributors all at once.

It'd also be widely visible to billions of people (potentially).

ISS is moving at 27,000 kmph, doubt they'd stand a chance of hitting that. There's a difference between firing a missile from one land mass to another compared with tracking and accurately striking a moving target in space

Sliver · 31 Jul 2017 at 09:13

Roar87 said:
ISS is moving at 27,000 kmph, doubt they'd stand a chance of hitting that. There's a difference between firing a missile from one land mass to another compared with tracking and accurately striking a moving target in space

As the ISS is travelling in a fixed orbit above Earth and at a constant speed, a missile would only need to know where the ISS will be at a given time. So instead of firing at the ISS, you fire where it will arrive at a given time.

Having said that, I don't think NK would waste a missile on the ISS.

mark1284 · 7 Aug 2017 at 19:50

Rroff said:
The US has a sophisticated ABM system that can engage 100s of warheads potentially but its not foolproof and 100s of nukes going back the other way isn't likely to happen except in the most extreme of circumstances. Nuclear weapons are to deter conventional warfare escalating to full on state on state affairs which could present an existential threat to one or the other - NK is a long way from ever presenting an existential threat to wider US interests let alone its homeland. Not to mention China and to a more limited extent Russia wouldn't be too happy with 100s of WMDs being used next door to their territories.

Also NK appear to be trying to develop a missile that can defeat counter-measures (or it might just be coincidental due to flaw development it isn't quite clear) which will be a worry - if they do perfect miniaturisation though it would also open up other delivery mechanisms to them.

I dont think NK is stupid enough to attack the US. Surely they must know the regime would be taken out if they did???

Rroff · 7 Aug 2017 at 19:55

mark1284 said:
I dont think NK is stupid enough to attack the US. Surely they must know the regime would be taken out if they did???

It is an interesting question - it is easy to both underestimate and overestimate NK's perspective on that kind of thing due to the isolation in comparison to standard Western and even global perspectives and even though some of the elites have experience of the wider world - Kim Jong-un even has some aspects of a Western education - how much does living and/or being brought up in that environment in that society warp even that? My worry is that their perspective towards that kind of thing is much more closely an analogue of perspectives a few decades ago possibly as far back as WW2 towards the use of WMDs than contemporary ones and hence more likely to use them than other countries would today.

However most experts believe that their intentions are that "once" they have built up their military to a level that can retake the peninsula they can use the threat of nuclear weapons to force the US to stand aside.

mark1284 · 7 Aug 2017 at 20:00

Good point

Malevolence · 7 Aug 2017 at 20:05

Roar87 said:
ISS is moving at 27,000 kmph, doubt they'd stand a chance of hitting that. There's a difference between firing a missile from one land mass to another compared with tracking and accurately striking a moving target in space

Like I posted above, if they really wanted to **** **** up then a few payloads of builders gravel dumped into the correct orbits would be devastating.

Rroff · 7 Aug 2017 at 20:09

Roar87 said:
ISS is moving at 27,000 kmph, doubt they'd stand a chance of hitting that. There's a difference between firing a missile from one land mass to another compared with tracking and accurately striking a moving target in space

The ISS is moving on a relatively predictable trajectory despite the speed - calculating an intercept using a slower speed missile is "relatively" trivial that is what ABMs, etc. do and they have access to technology like Russia's S-300 platform (they've basically cloned it with KN-06) which would enable them to develop systems for that.

I doubt they would target the ISS though - it would be a relatively pointless gesture of spite that would also infuriate one of their few remaining sort of supporters.

As an aside google maps now has "street view" of the inside of the ISS - its quite disorientating.