North Korea Parades Hybrid 'Frankenmissile', Then Fails Yet Another Missile Launch Test (cnn.com)

First, an anonymous reader quotes Inverse: On Saturday, the North Korean military paraded an unprecedented array of weapons through Kim Il-sung Square in the center of Pyongyang... "We're totally floored right now," Dave Schmerler of the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in Monterey, California, tells the Wall Street Journal. "I was not expecting to see this many new missile designs." Schmerler tells The Journal that the large missiles -- the "frankenmissiles," as he calls them -- in the parade appear to be hybrids of the North Korean KN-08 and KN-14 missiles, both of which are ICBMs.
But at least one arms control expert noted that while the parade included ICBM-sized canisters, "what's inside is anyone's guess" -- and there's still mixed results for the country's missile program. "An attempted missile launch by North Korea on Sunday failed, US and South Korean defense officials told CNN... At this point, US military officials don't believe the missile had intercontinental capabilities, a US defense official told CNN." The official said there was limited data -- because the missile blew up so quickly -- prompting CNN.com to run the story under the headline "Show of Strength a Flop."

Update: Slashdot reader Dan Drollette is a science writer/editor and foreign correspondent for Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and contacted us earlier today to share his recently-published analysis "to delve into what has been happening lately...and to discredit some common tropes in the media, such as the idea that 'North Korea is about to collapse,' 'China has a lot of influence over North Korea,' 'North Korea can credibly threaten the United States right now,' 'North Korea has no reason to feel threatened,' or 'The North can be completely denuclearized.'"

Comments

Hybrid!

[TechyImmigrant]

It's nice that they are thinking of the environment and building hybrid missiles.

Re:Hybrid!

[Aighearach]

Indeed, since no country in the world parades actual missiles, they're guaranteed to be pretty green compared to the kind that can explode, or fly, or both in North Korea's case.

It is pretty funny reading transcripts from these talking heads who fly all the way to Korea to get on the teevee and pretend that nobody told them that parades have fake weapons.

Countries with higher quality missile programs can use empty canisters from otherwise-real missiles, and show off a high degree of consistency from one missile to the next. Real missiles are built on assembly lines with everything exactly the same, because it really helps if they're predictable and all only explode under the exact same conditions, which can then be well known.

When you see a "Frankenmissile," it means that they don't have spare canisters for real missiles, and the mockups are built one at a time in more of an art-studio type environment, probably by people who are not engineers are don't have an eye for faking manufactured goods to the level needed to make them even look real.

And the media guys who breathly speculate... know all that. They're just totally shameless.

Re: Hybrid!

[oobayly]

My first thought was that they were fake, but not for the same reason. I assumed that they'd stuck on extra bits so their great leader could show his people (and the gullible of the world) how well their missile programme is progressing.

Re: Hybrid!

[barc0001]

> My first thought was that they were fake

You're not the only one... I'm no missile designer, but it seems to be that something in this video does seem to be a bit out of whack:

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=922_1492285518&utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

Not saying that's a cheaply constructed fake, but at the same time I can't see how it could do any good to have a nosecone deflected that far off the direction of flight...

" discredit some common tropes in the media "

[turkeydance]

North Korea tropes the common media with discredit....chinglish

NK *is* a credible threat

[fyngyrz]

North Korea is a credible threat because they have SLBM's (Submarine-Launched-Ballistic-Missiles.) They can get very close - they don't need the kind of range an ICMB design provides.

That, and their glorious leader regularly displays both extreme aggression and extremely small-minded decision-making.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[ColdWetDog]

If they want to wait several million more years for the southern part of the Pacific plate to wander over somewhere in the general vicinity of NK;

The North Korean navy is considered a brown water navy and operates mainly within the 50 kilometer exclusion zone. The fleet consists of east and west coast squadrons, which cannot support each other in the event of war with South Korea. The limited range of most of the vessels means that, even in peacetime, it is virtually impossible for a ship on one coast to visit the other coast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

But then they'd only get to annoy Mexico.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Somehow I doubt any NK sub is moving a millimeter without a US fast attack or two trailing it with loaded tubes and a firing solution already locked in. If they so much as open a tube or missile door they'll be dead before they can fire anything.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[fyngyrz]

Yes, the irony hasn't escaped me, sigh.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[bongey]

North Korea only has diesel electric subs, it would basically be impossible for them to get close to the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .

North Korea could really only get within striking distance of South Korea without detection. Japan would even be a stretch.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[fyngyrz]

Your (completely uncalled for) optimism about NK's 70 or so subs is noted.

Brown water... I would only point out that in WWII, the Japanese managed to build subs that could reach the US coast. Assuming some NK hardware is not at least as capable is absurd.

Assuming a sub can't get out from under surveillance may also be uncalled for. Hard to say without going into classified details. In any case, the fact that they have the hardware that can deliver the weapons means that they present a credible threat, whether we can stop them from doing so or not.

And Trump... well, I am not filled with confidence that Trump is a "thoughtful" person either.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[fyngyrz]

I'm sure our boomer and attack sub commanders would be appalled to know they are so easily found. You should let them know ASAP. /s

Or to put it another way, you have no idea what you're talking about, and should probably stop talking in order to prevent further illumination of this fact.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[Aighearach]

Exactly, they need to be disarmed before they miniaturize their warheads. The missile stuff is mostly a red herring. If they do another nuke test, they have to be immediately stopped because they're just too close.

I keep hearing the South Korean media blather on and on, misunderstanding the word "consult" for "seek permission." I guess that is why they had protests when some of their politicians wanted local military control. When war comes, saying no to it just means you one of the dead. North Korea is a real threat, if they were not a real threat they would be staying close to China and there would be no problems. They could have Chinese troops protecting them if they would give up the nukes, but they won't do it.

Some people forget that history has shown examples of evil regimes not only willing but eager to kill millions. When they say they're going to nuke us, and they're really trying to develop the needed technology, it might be worth taking them at their word.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[hey!]

They can get pretty close by simply putting it onto a boat and sailing it in the any US port. For that matter the 9700 pound Hiroshima Bomb could be built into a modest sized cabin cruiser and sailed up to the Potomac to within about a mile of the White House.

It's really hard to protect a large modern state from a rogue nation with nuclear capabilities, which is why non-proliferation is so important. It's one of those problems that are so hard, people just ignore it and focus instead on ones that seem more accomplishable, like establishing democracy in countries that have never had one.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[Aighearach]

The thing about submarines is that the low tech ones are actually quieter than the fancy ones when running on batteries. They have to make a bunch of noise to recharge, but if you're just moving one submarine one time there are ways to avoid that, like having it follow under a regular civilian ship and running generators on the ship. That obviously won't work for a whole fleet, and won't work repeatedly, but there are lots of schemes to get a battery powered sub through the defenses one time. Even the drug smugglers manage it. They might even buy it somewhere else, and it wouldn't even have ever been to North Korea.

I'm not sure what difference you think you would see if it has nukes, vs not having them.

Things like plankton plumes are what you would worry about with a nuclear powered submarine that generates a lot of waste heat, it has nothing to do with a battery-powered submarine that is simply carrying nuclear warheads.

Perhaps you read something talking about the cold-war techniques developed to try to keep track of submarines, and mistook it for an absolute capability instead of a bag of tricks that sometimes work.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[haruchai]

The only thing that would accomplish would be the extermination of the North Korean people, especially with the Orange Oompa Loompa in office.
North Korea is not the problem; China's support of them and use of them as a proxy is.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming some NK hardware is not at least as capable is absurd.

This is 2016, not 1942. The technology for detecting and tracking submerged vessels has improved somewhat in the last 74 years. The North Korean subs are basically vintage 1960s era technology, like much of the rest of their military. They're not going anywhere without being tracked and if they approach the United States they will be sunk, war or no war, because nobody will be watching except the ones doing the shooting. Submarines can be accident prone and the Pacific Ocean has a fearsome reputation among mariners. Nobody would have any problem believing that a North Korean submarine had an "accident" while at sea. In fact, the visibility of submarines at sea to the general public is so low that they United States could essentially deny any knowledge. Finally, the North Koreans are so unsympathetic and unpopular these days that nobody would care what happened to their submarine anyway.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[ShanghaiBill]

When they say they're going to nuke us, and they're really trying to develop the needed technology, it might be worth taking them at their word.

They don't say they are going to nuke us. They say their nukes are for defensive purposes against American belligerence. Let's look at America's track record:

1. Saddam Hussein gave up his nuclear program.
Result: America killed him.

2. Muammar Gaddafi gave up his nuclear program.
Result: America killed him.

So how does it make any logical sense for Kim to give up his nukes?
If America wants non-proliferation, maybe we should stop killing people who cooperate.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[chromaexcursion]

why did you post as an Anonymous Coward?
DEAD on. and DEAD on what happen to any NK sub where the US doesn't want it. Gone, without a word, with all hands.
re quoting:
This is 2016, not 1942. The technology for detecting and tracking submerged vessels has improved somewhat in the last 74 years. The North Korean subs are basically vintage 1960s era technology, like much of the rest of their military. They're not going anywhere without being tracked and if they approach the United States they will be sunk, war or no war, because nobody will be watching except the ones doing the shooting. Submarines can be accident prone and the Pacific Ocean has a fearsome reputation among mariners. Nobody would have any problem believing that a North Korean submarine had an "accident" while at sea. In fact, the visibility of submarines at sea to the general public is so low that they United States could essentially deny any knowledge. Finally, the North Koreans are so unsympathetic and unpopular these days that nobody would care what happened to their submarine anyway.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[Joe_Dragon]

and then the last thing you hear is why is an american submarine shooting an Russian torpedo

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[dbIII]

the low tech ones are actually quieter than the fancy ones when running on batteries

Also they can wait entirely silent if needed, not an option with a nuclear sub since the cooling system is not passive and needs to run pumps.

Re: NK *is* a credible threat

[guruevi]

Yet South American drug convoys manage to run subs and boats back and forth on a daily basis spitting distance off the US coast. You vastly overstate the quality and readiness of the US military.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[dbIII]

The only reason North Korea is a threat is because China is propping them up.

We are all propping them up. Their business model has been "will threaten for food" for decades.
China is selling them oil at a vast markup, more profiting than "propping them up". I'm not defending China just pointing out something that should make you a bit more aware that even China can't tell them what to do and be listened to.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[interkin3tic]

But the regime also shows a longer-term focus than a lot of other governments. Because they know they're either going to still be the guys in control, or they'll die violently. I think they're aware they shouldn't change things too much too rapidly.

Or they're drinking their own koolaid and believe they'll survive a nuclear war due to superior genetics and dear leader's giant dick and we're fucked, I dunno really.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[dbIII]

Some of those subs came from the European part of the USSR under their own power so have a range a little more than a tiny fishing boat. You are picking an odd thing to be dangerously overconfident about.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[dbIII]

they have to be immediately stopped

How is that to be done without Seoul being shelled into rubble before they are stopped?
Not an easy question to answer is it?

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[Anonymous Coward]

AC's are no less wrong or right than anyone else. Judge on substance, not user name. That is how Trump became president.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[Aighearach]

You want a magic pony or something, who said anything about Seoul not being damaged?

Here is the thing though, if they're aiming their artillery at the city, and we're aiming ours at their artillery, then Seoul is damaged but not destroyed.

They've known this all along as they've continued to live next to the border. It is brave. The North even built giant invasion tunnels. Everybody stayed by the border.

Eventually Korea will be unified, and they will have it behind them.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[Aighearach]

No, they say they will nuke us. They're the only country in the world to develop the tech and say that, but it is what it is.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[dbIII]

You want a magic pony or something, who said anything about Seoul not being damaged?

OK, I see where you are coming from and really wish I didn't.
WTF is it with the warmongering and complete and utter disrespect of allied nations? WTF is the point of attacking NK at all if South Korea is going to be thrown away - "being strong" or some shit like that?

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[dbIII]

and we're aiming ours at their artillery

They are built inside fucking mountains and there are not enough MOAB's in stock to take them all out even if that thing can do it.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[haruchai]

You can't possibly believe that. North Korea as it is, by itself can not stand.
Iraq was a more credible threat and was helpless against American military might.
NK can't even keep the lights on at night.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[haruchai]

Important difference is that both Iraq & Libya have plenty of oil. NK grows nice fruit which their own people don't get to eat.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[haruchai]

If China stays neutral, America's Pacific Fleet can take them out in a couple months.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[haruchai]

They are built inside fucking mountains and there are not enough MOAB's in stock to take them all out even if that thing can do it.

That doesn't mean a damn thing. If the artillery is shooting, then the location is known and America has plenty of accurate firepower to throw back and quickly take out their positions. Being inside mountains is great for defense but lousy for attack.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[dbIII]

NK can't even keep the lights on at night.

They have different priorities but they still have the resources of a nation and millions of people.
Also, what is it I'm supposed to not possibly believe exactly? NK trades with China, Iran etc - I did not deny that. They get military aid from China, but you are incredibly naive if you think China can tell them what to do and it will be done.
I'm also not in any way defending NK but you seem to think so. I knew someone who had to flee the place to the comparitive freedom of Mao's China (that's how fucked up NK was, and it got worse later) when they started getting xenophobic about Chinese on top of already hating everyone else.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[AmiMoJo]

NK has been clear that it will retaliate, which is the same stance as the US.

Kim is a fairly rational actor. He is guilty of overkill, but he acts pretty rationally. Trump on the other hand...

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[dbIII]

I heard that sort of thing about Afganistan. Still unfinished.
All be over be Christmas Mr Armchair Warmonger too cowardly to enlist yet calling for blood?

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[Bert64]

Let's not forget that Ukraine also gave up their nukes, and Russia promised to protect them... Look what happened there.

North Korea is a small country with a relatively weak military, who have either lost or are in the process of losing their powerful allies. As it stands, a conventional war between north and south korea would end very swiftly in defeat for the north especially if america got involved on the south's behalf and right now pretty much the only thing stopping this from happening is china, and it doesn't look like the chinese will be backing them for much longer.

On the other hand if they have nukes and are able to deliver even a small number that would make any aggressors think twice about attacking because even though north korea would still ultimately lose, there would end up being significant losses on both sides and neither the us or south korean governments would be able to justify this to their people.

The north is highly unlikely to ever strike first, because there is no way they would ever be able to hit hard enough that there wouldn't be a severe response. They might be able to blow up a few cities, but then they would have america attacking them back in full force.

Let's also consider the economic sanctions imposed on north korea, they don't hurt the regime - there are still plenty of black market channels through which kim jong un can obtain his imacs and whatever else, and the lack of open trade/communication is helping the regime keep their people away from foreign sources a propaganda. Meanwhile the negative attention and threat has caused them to spend a disproportionate amount of their budget on the military in order to defend themselves.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[gtall]

Iraq didn't have a S. Korea will millions at risk to hold hostage.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[peragrin]

Except desiel subs have been bypassing nuclear subs with regularity. A modern desiel electric sub is quieter. The only solution is to expand the defense net to twice the longest range of the electric drive and hope you can catch them charging batteries

Re: NK *is* a credible threat

[SuricouRaven]

Really really tiny, short-range subs. Drug smuggling subs do exist, but they usually don't even have an air compartment - the 'driver' just wears SCUBA. The only watertight parts are the cargo hold (got to keep the drugs dry) and the battery compartment.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[SuricouRaven]

North Korea has an understandable desire for nukes as a deterrent. They fear, and for good reason, that some future US president will decide he wants to 'spread freedom and democracy' and launch an invasion. It's happened before, it may happen again. The problem we have is the apparent unpredictability of North Korea: Their government frequently displays intense hostility towards just about the entire world and minor outbreaks of hostility are commonplace between them and South Korea. Between that and having almost all power centralised in the hands of just a handful of people, it raises the uncomfortable prospect that a nuclear-armed North Korea might just be one bad day away from believing their own propaganda and launching a preemptive strike.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[SuricouRaven]

It's perfectly good for attack if you know in advance that you'll only be aiming for one target.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[SuricouRaven]

China is sensible. They plan long-term. They wouldn't want to sully their reputation by supporting NK in a war that could only end one way. They'd be more concerned with controlling the aftermath: Making sure that most of NK ends up under de facto Chinese control, rather than as a puppet-state of the US or being slowly reabsorbed into the US-allied south. I imagine this would be best achieved by largely sitting out the fighting, then launching a massive humanitarian aid and reconstruction program. China can afford it, is reduces the amount of refugees fleeing into China, and it ingratiates them to the newly-liberated population.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[LWATCDR]

"I would only point out that in WWII, the Japanese managed to build subs that could reach the US coast. Assuming some NK hardware is not at least as capable is absurd."
True, but it is absurd to think that the US's ASW capability has not improved massively since WWII. The only SB the North Korean's have shown is an old Golf Class sub they bought as scrap from Russia that they put back into service. It is 1950s tech as far as the hull form and power plant. They are working on the Simpo but it only as 1500km range and none are in service. So a 1950s class SB has to get close enough to the US to launch. I would bet good money that the US has at least one SSN tasked to keep track of that SB any time it leaves port. If it got too close to the US I would bet that it would have some kind of accident. Maybe a collision with the SSN or it would just sink because of??? BTW NK still has not had a successful launch from a sub.

Re: NK *is* a credible threat

[guruevi]

I wouldn't call a 100ft diesel-electric sub carrying 20T of cocaine a small thing - those are indeed the exception but none of them are being torpedoed out of the water. About 20% of US drugs is estimated to come from narco-subs. That's a LOT of potential nuclear armament.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[LWATCDR]

Only on battery and have, you looked at the NKs subs? They are not modern SS's they are 1950s class subs.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[LWATCDR]

Our boomer and attack subs are decades more modern than the junk that North Korea has. Their ocean-going subs are all old Russian Romeo, Whisky, and Hotel class subs. They have a few midget subs but they could not reach the US.
In other words, you also do not know what you are talking about if you compare the subs of NK with US.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[drinkypoo]

The thing about submarines is that the low tech ones are actually quieter than the fancy ones when running on batteries.

The thing about submarines is that the power system is not the only thing that makes noise. Even the screw does that, and NK is working with decades-old technology. They're not going to have access to the same kind of design technology that the US or Russia uses to make subs stealthy. Nobody is going to sell it to them, and they probably don't have the espionage budget to get the information, either.

The drug smugglers get subs past the sensors in two ways. One, they are small. Two, nobody is trying to stop drugs coming into the country anyway. If you stop that, then it's much harder to make money on the war on drugs. People are only trying to look busy. We could stop virtually all of the drug shipments coming into the country, for example, by inspecting literally all shipments. That would cost more money, but it could be done and it's what you would do if you actually wanted to stop the drug trade.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[Ramley]

Assuming some NK hardware is not at least as capable is absurd.

This is 2016, not 1942. The technology for detecting and tracking submerged vessels has improved somewhat in the last 74 years. The North Korean subs are basically vintage 1960s era technology, like much of the rest of their military. They're not going anywhere without being tracked and if they approach the United States they will be sunk, war or no war, because nobody will be watching except the ones doing the shooting. Submarines can be accident prone and the Pacific Ocean has a fearsome reputation among mariners. Nobody would have any problem believing that a North Korean submarine had an "accident" while at sea. In fact, the visibility of submarines at sea to the general public is so low that they United States could essentially deny any knowledge. Finally, the North Koreans are so unsympathetic and unpopular these days that nobody would care what happened to their submarine anyway.

Well... here's some news from 2015 ...

"Where are North Korea's submarines? Whereabouts of fleet which vanished from radar remains a mystery days after Kim Jong Un ends stand-off with the South"

Or this: North Korea's 50 Missing Submarines Have Apparently Reappeared Following Truce

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[Kjella]

The north is highly unlikely to ever strike first, because there is no way they would ever be able to hit hard enough that there wouldn't be a severe response. They might be able to blow up a few cities, but then they would have america attacking them back in full force.

On a day that NK is rational, of course they make their best impression of being irrational. A rational explanation is that NK wants to give the impression they'll fight to the last man and make any invasion a bloody carnage even if they'll be on the losing end of the mess, whether or not that's actually true it's better than giving the appearance that they'll fold to superior forces. The counter-argument is that they might really be irrational and replaced so much fact with ideology, honest men with yes-men and drunk so much of their own kool-aid they'll attack in a genuine but foolish belief they'll win.

The question is how often has that really happened, that a vastly inferior army has gone on the attack? Even if you look at the wars that were genuinely lost like Hitler's invasion of Russia, the Japanese invasion of Pearl Harbor, the arab build-up to the Six Day War, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and so on they had a lot more genuine power to think they could win or wouldn't incur the wrath of major allies. North Korea has half the population and 1/50th the GDP of South Korea and the US is a close ally that has repeated made it clear they'll back SK in case of a war.

It seems to me most dictators are quite happy ruling their own fiefdom, I doubt your world gets any shinier if you rule 10 million people or 20 million people. At least now in the modern day of long range weapons where you can't just send out your armies to die for you while you're king of the castle. Or at the very least commanding well behind enemy lines. Despite all the heroic tales of kings leading their men into battle I doubt they were at the front of the charge...

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[Registered Coward v2]

Your (completely uncalled for) optimism about NK's 70 or so subs is noted.

Only six are missile submarines, and those are diesel boats; which have to surface or snort to recharge their batteries and thus are a lot easier to track than a nuke. In addition, if one or more was detected leaving NK waters they'd probably have a tail right way to see where it was headed. Any sign of a launch could result in them getting a torpedo amidships before they realized what was happening. OK, they'd hear the high pitched screw noises for a short period before water started entering their submarine.

Brown water... I would only point out that in WWII, the Japanese managed to build subs that could reach the US coast. Assuming some NK hardware is not at least as capable is absurd.

The Japanese built subs for long distance deployment, as did the Germans and US. A costal submarine may simply not have the fuel stores for a long voyage even if it could operate in blue water. It would appear their 6 missile boats may have the capability since it would make no sense to build one that has limited range.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[Anonymous Coward]

The same Oompa Loompa that looks like he managed to get Syria to stop with chemical weapons in a couple months, something the "Great Obama" was unable to do over an 8 year period?

I think you are judging results the incorrect way. Stopping bad things, like dictators gasing their own people, and creating jobs for his own people are GOOD things. Letting dictators gas civilians and destroying local jobs are BAD things.

Re: NK *is* a credible threat

[Type44Q]

These aren't the Russians we're talking about; NK's subs aren't going to get within launch range of the U.S. coast for another thirty years: if they were even able to come up with nuclear replacements for their diesel/electric propulsion systems, we'd hear the cooling systems from hundreds of miles away. Besides, which is more likely: that they're this bad at testing rockets or that the U.S. has the ability to take them out at launch?

their glorious leader regulary displays... extremely small-minded decision-making.

Somehow that family has managed to stay in power for nearly seventy years; CIA memes notwithstanding, he's likely far more capable than mainstream consumers of propaganda likely realize.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[fyngyrz]

NK can't even keep the lights on at night.

The reason they can't keep the lights on at night is because they spend 22-23% of their GDP on the military, including nuclear weapons.

That is why they are a threat -- because they can do damage -- you don't make a military threat assessment by counting light bulbs.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[Ol Olsoc]

In other words, you also do not know what you are talking about if you compare the subs of NK with US.

Its their favorite fantasy, and you're stomping all over it, you meany!

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[ColdWetDog]

Uh... That's the Daily Mail. And Vice.

Maybe stick to well, journalism?

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[swb]

The problem is they've had 60-odd years to multiply and dig-in their artillery emplacements capable of hitting Seoul. I don't think there's a scenario where Seoul doesn't experience significant damage, no matter how effective counter-battery or airstrikes are at silencing those guns. Even pessimistically, 1500 guns getting off 10 rounds each is a lot of artillery strikes for a modern city to absorb. The ability to hit Seoul with artillery is a greater deterrent than nukes, and really Kim should have invested in dumb rocket launchers and even more artillery.

I think the only way Seoul escapes is some kind of decapitation strike that kills Kim and his immediate circle so convincingly that the rest of his military doesn't react and surrenders.

IMHO, this isn't entirely far-fetched -- my speculation is that in a country so paranoid, field commanders are scared witless and almost trained *not* to make decisions. I would question how many of them are existentially committed to fighting to the bitter end to protect and restore a new Kim-style dynasty in the event of the inner circle's untimely demise.

Trouble is, that decapitation strike is tactically difficult and the consequences of not doing it perfectly.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[haruchai]

There's nothing stopping the USA from withdrawing from Aghanistan, or Iraq which are two places they never should have been in the 1st place.
The only NK blood that needs spilling is the crazy fat kid's with the bad poodle haircut.
Clearly you missed the part where *he's* the one always threatening destruction and building more & more weapons, taking more warlike steps towards the West than his father & grandfather combined.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[haruchai]

The Orange Dingleberry had a lot of tweets about exactly how Obama should handle Syria - and this was after a gas attack that killed TWENTY times more people that the one that prompted his humanitarian bombing.
http://www.trumptwitterarchive...

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[MightyMartian]

Even without nukes, NK has an absolutely massive conventional arsenal pointed at Seoul. If there is an actual out and out breakout of hostilities, Seoul will likely be flattened in very short order. In essence, Pyongyang is holding Seoul hostage, and it is that, apart from even nuclear weapons, that has everyone generally pussyfooting around NK.

There's no one that believes this is a regime that will politely crawl into a corner and die. This isn't East Germany or even the USSR. This is a country that is effectively a monarchy, maybe even bordering on Caesaro-Papism. The crimes the Kim dynasty have committed means that if the regime should fall, I doubt there is any country on the planet, even somewhat friendly regimes like Iran or China, who would take Kim Jong Un and his closest advisers and relatives in. In effect, NK is the perfect example of the cornered animal, and if he is forcefully removed, I guarantee the Korean Peninsula will light up like a Christmas tree.

That's why military intervention really is absurd, and little more than chest thumping. Any attempt at blast the Kims out of power would lead to millions of deaths in South Korea, would severely impact one of the most important global economic zones in the world, and would leave a critical part of the global economic infrastructure in ruins. If he could, there's no doubt Kim Jong Un would strike out at Japan if he knew he was done, and while there are debates as to how much damage could be done, Japan still remains at least a somewhat viable target.

And I think even indirect means, like getting China to agree to basically shut down all trade with NK, and isolating the country completely would end the same way. First of all, to do it effectively, you would also need a naval blockade, and well, that's just going to lead to the war I was talking about above.

In the end there probably isn't a solution to NK. One would like to think that eventually someone within the regime would go after Kim Jong Un, but he's already liquidated most of the people who represented any threat or even curb to his absolute rule, and I suspect anyone else who even thought about taking him out has been convinced by watching his own uncle frog-marched out of a meeting and then blown up with anti-aircraft guns. People call the younger Kim crazy, I'm looking at a level of Stalinesque brutality whose main purpose isn't even to get rid of troublesome senior officials, but to broadcast the message to everyone inside and outside North Korea that he is in absolute control and no one is going to be getting rid of him.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[haruchai]

The most damage they can do is to themselves. It's one thing to have fancy military dance parades but once the North Koreans end up in a fight against a real army, the most worried person is going to be a certain hereditary leader.

Nuclear weapons? They may have nuclear materials but their missiles keep failing to launch, including yesterday.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[MightyMartian]

The whole "Kim Jong Un is crazy" is, I suspect, exactly the kind of meme that the regime loves the rest of the world to believe. But I agree with you, NK's rulers are ultimately rational actors. Depraved, murderous, maybe even psychopathic, but certainly rational. There's no intent to invade, and the Kim Dynasty has known since the Korean War that the US will not countenance an invasion of South Korea, and that China and Russia (more China these days, of course) will not facilitate in any way renewed war with South Korea.

The entire purpose of the vast conventional arsenal pointed at Seoul, and of the development of nuclear weapons, is to assure the regime's survival. The only way those weapons ever actually get used is if the regime feels itself under threat, or if it is in outright collapse.

While the idea of NK having a significant nuclear arsenal doesn't bode well, the regime does not appear to be a suicidal one, and if it ever did actually use a nuclear weapon on South Korea, Japan or the US, China would, if it didn't directly intervene itself, at the very least stand back and let the US do what needed to be done. NK, like every nuclear state, has but one purpose for such weapons, to guarantee territorial integrity and regime survival.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[MightyMartian]

The problem being they have had nearly seventy years to dig that artillery in, and you don't think they haven't counted on aerial bombardment or missile strikes? Whatever happens, Seoul is smashed to smithereens, and the lives of 10 million people in one of the most important cities in the world are put at extreme risk. Even if you manage to take out the artillery in short order, Seoul is still in ruins, and who knows what else the regime has; likely chemical weapons, and maybe they can even get one of their nukes off the ground.

If the intent of intervening in NK is to prevent a lot of death, it strikes me that a military intervention to topple or weaken the regime will accomplish exactly that; lots of death.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[MightyMartian]

Exactly. A military decapitation seems highly improbable. Actually getting at Kim Jong-un with a missile strike is probably as likely as getting at President Trump or Putin with a missile strike. In other words, it's close enough to impossible to not be worth it. That leaves assassination, and judging by the effectiveness with which Kim Jong-un has liquidated anyone in the regime even remotely capable of taking him out (irrespective of familial relations to himself, to boot), I'd say getting an assassin close to him is likely about as probable as taking him out militarily. In reality, so poor is the outside world's intelligence on NK that we can't even be sure of the makeup of the inner circle. NK remains one of the most opaque jurisdictions in the world, and is a master of befuddling its enemies.

The only real hope I see is a sort of Praetorian revolt, but if the two elder Kims were able to prevent anyone from taking them out, I think Kim Jong-un is probably just as safe. I'm wagering the period when Kim Jong-un was under his father's tutelage was a period where the elder Kim made out lists of all the people Kim Jong-un needed to be good to to cement his hold on power, and when those people needed to be liquidated.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[MightyMartian]

If Assad had the same ability to flatten his neighbors' biggest cities as Kim jong-un did, I suspect there wouldn't have been a missile strike. The fact is that any attempt to remove the regime is going to mean millions of South Korean lives are threatened, not to mention untold amounts of infrastructure.

At the end of the day, the best even China can hope for is containment, to give the regime enough slaps on the wrist to get it to play nice. This is an old game now, China and the US have been playing "good cop, bad cop" for decades now.

Re: NK *is* a credible threat

[MightyMartian]

Hardly everyone. In the early years, the USSR offered NK a huge amount of technical assistance, not to mention making sure it was well-armed. China also made everyone understand during the Korean War that it also viewed the continued existence of NK as a major aim of the PRC, and since those days China has taken over the position of primary ally. Yes, it's getting more tense these days, and perhaps the day is coming when Pyongyang will become sufficiently troublesome that even Beijing walks away, but I think that day is a long ways off.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[dwpro]

It's not a good menu of choices to my mind. North Korea has been on a mission to develop nuclear technology and ICBMS for at least two decades now, and have lied and cheated every deal to try and dissuade them from going down the path. This will come to a head at some point, and allowing an unstable government to use or lose control of nuclear armament is not an option.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[haruchai]

If NK is relying on artillery alone, their chances of "smashing Seoul to smithereens" is quite slim.
Harass, endanger, absolutely. But demolish? Only if no one is shooting back

http://www.popularmechanics.co...

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[whodunit]

The thing about submarines is that the low tech ones are actually quieter than the fancy ones when running on batteries.

You mean "diesel-electric" boats, not "low-tech" boats. Modern diesel-electric submarines - which are used by the vast majority of world navies - are anything but low-tech. One of the biggest producers of them is Germany, and they incorporate all the cutting-edge technology used in nuclear submarines, plus some technologies unique to diesel subs to overcome their inherent power limitations - the most notable of which is "air-independent propulsion," or AIP. Effectively these are fuel cells that let the boat generate more power (and thus, more speed) while submerged than the battery banks alone can deliver.

The main problem for the North Koreans is, they're up against world navies that have either decades of experience tracking and shadowing cutting-edge nuclear-powered boomers operated by the best of the best (i.e. America, in the Cold War) or navies allied with said nation and benefiting from their experience and knowledge via co-operative training/exercises... and they're playing this game with woefully outdated equipment. A modern diesel-electric submarine is limited in many ways, but can be very quiet. The "boomers" North Korea's using are based on the Russian Romeo class, which was obsolete many decades ago. Modern sonars have become much, much more sensitive, but the Romeo has stayed the same noisy old pile of parts it always was. Add to this the lack of funds for exhaustive training or maintenance. Then consider the sheer number of assets the nations arrayed against North Korea can bring to bear; especially the sheer number of MPA patrol aircraft.

Then recall that the United States became so adept at finding, tracking and tailing boomers that the Soviets eventually resorted to keeping their boomers in protected "bastions" where friendly surface ships and air cover could protect them - and then they made a regular habit of infiltrating even those, which is how many of those sub-on-sub collisions happened. If they can do that against cutting-edge nuclear subs operated by the world's best, I think they can manage against 40 year old junkers operated by starving amateurs.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[thadtheman]

Can they even haul a missle? They havve to be carefully balanced to do that, essentially double hulled ships.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[haruchai]

In case you missed my reply to another of your posts about Pyongyang's threat to Seoul, here it is again.

Short story - destructive potential of entrenched NK's "massive artillery" to South Korea's capital is massively overblown.

http://www.popularmechanics.co...

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[BronsCon]

To be fair, there wasn't much substance coming from anyone in the most recent election. Username is all we had to go on.

Saying that in this instance is like handing someone a pile of dust covers and telling them to look through them and pick the next book they want to read; the whole while shouting "don't judge a book by its cover!"

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[dbIII]

Ah - the "great man" view of history.
The place is fucked up and if that Kim dies another almost as fucked up is there to take his place.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[swb]

I think taking out Kim is probably easier than Trump or Putin simply because his security and military defenses aren't able to stop some threats, like a cruise missile strike or some kind of air strikes. His secretive nature, though, probably contradicts this advantage -- you have to know where he is to hit him successfully.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[dbIII]

The most damage they can do is to themselves

They already have and they don't care (I knew someone who fled the place in the 1960s) but they can kill a lot of people in South Korea as well as possibly Japan and maybe some Pacific ports or shipping.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[Aighearach]

The problem with the idea that they are "rational" is that it implies that they feel exceptionally desperate. Rational, like a cornered animal?

The alternatives seem to be believing that they act crazy because they're mentally insane, which is highly unlikely, or because they see their situation as being exceedingly desperate, far more desperate than it really would be if they weren't threatening anybody. Which is crazy.

If they're internally sane, it implies that they are acting on information so bad that they their actions are effectively insane. It turns out it doesn't help the military analysis at all. They're just as dangerous and volatile if they're irrationally desperate as if they're irrationally evil.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[Aighearach]

You don't need special tech to make electric subs stealthy. They're super-quiet when running on battery. That old tech is quieter than those fancy US and Russian tech. The reason the US and Russia needs all that fancy stealth sub tech is that nuclear power has lots of moving parts, all of which make weird noises. It is a steam turbine, after all, it is somewhat similar to having a coal power station onboard. Noisy as hell without all that fancy shit.

Compare the moving parts in a coal power station (including moving steam!) to the moving parts in a battery. OK, it should be obvious that with perfect future tech the nuclear-powered sub would eventually approach the low noise of the battery sub, but never quite reach it.

The problem is that the batteries don't last very long, and you eventually have to re-surface and run a diesel generator to recharge them, which is as noisy as a tug boat. Then everybody can follow you. So if you spend enough money on logistics, you can conspire to recharge from other batteries and make a silent voyage.

You nonsense about "nobody is trying to stop the drugs" is pretty funny. So this submarine sneaks up... you don't know who it is... how do you know it is the drug smugglers and not the North Koreans? Answer: You don't! Your argument that nobody cares about the drug subs would seem to imply that you're aware that the vulnerability is proven.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[drinkypoo]

You nonsense about "nobody is trying to stop the drugs" is pretty funny. So this submarine sneaks up... you don't know who it is... how do you know it is the drug smugglers and not the North Koreans?

By the noise it makes, of course.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[dbIII]

On that note the autonomous region* of China adjacent to North Korea has a population that is about half Korean speakers (down from about 80% at the end of WW2), is relatively sparsely populated for China and has already taken more than a hundred thousand NK refugees over the years.
I met someone from the border region of that place and her opinion of what to do about NK was to wait until the wind is blowing out to sea and then nuke it - at least some Chinese have very strong negative opinions about NK.
*Self governed by ethnic Koreans on matters that Beijing doesn't want to be bothered with so nowhere nears as independent as a US State.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[SCVonSteroids]

No, actually you just sound like someone who can't let go of an argument, even when its clear there's something to it. At this point you; both of you really; are just slinging shit at eachother. Stop it. You both have valid points at times, don't turn this into a toxic swamp.

Re: NK *is* a credible threat

[ptkdb]

Their submarine fleet consists of reverse-engineered Soviet 'Golf' submarines. They were basically the first and last diesel submarines to carry ballistic missiles. They're sub launched missiles only have a range of a few hundred miles. I have no doubt that we've got at least a couple of LA or Virginia class nuclear subs hanging around the peninsula and their bases under close surveilance. Diesels, particuarlly ones that have to surface or run up a snorkel close to the surface in order to charge their batteries are notoriously noisy and the US has DECADES. of experience shadowing Soviet nuclear submarines that were much faster and quieter. Add to that, one leftover we have from the Cold War is the SOSUS net. A network of sonar sensors on the floors of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans that is still active. The Nork's sub(s) would have to get past that. To give you an idea of what that system was capable of in 1968 a soviet sub(also a Golf) sank and imploded. The SOSUS net helped us find the wreck, the Soviets never did. Bottom line. If NK put one of their subs to sea to approach the US on a mission of mayhem I doubt they could pull it off. The biggest problem a US sub commander is going to have is that the sub sinks before he has a chance to put a torpedo into it.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[dcw3]

50s?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[dcw3]

No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[dcw3]

Iraq was a flat desert. You won't be driving Abrams and Bradleys through NK. And with all of the mountainous bunkers, you're clearly underestimating the ease with which we'd defeat them. Just my $.02 as someone who spent six years looking across the DMZ.

Re: NK *is* a credible threat

[ptkdb]

Good book on US Sub operations Blind Man's Bluff: The Untold Story Of American Submarine Espionage https://www.amazon.com/dp/1891...

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[dcw3]

Past time? We've been doing so for decades, and have continued to reduce our troops on the ground. I was there between '85-94 as a civilian contractor...some things take actual engineers instead of troops.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[dcw3]

Bullshit.

The Seoul is well within artillery range of the DMZ. We're not talking nukes here. Missile defense will do little against artillery. Millions would die in the south, but don't let that get in the way of your idiotic statements.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[dcw3]

Only 4 Whisky class did, and it's suspected they may be retired/scrapped.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[dcw3]

It does if you consider the alternative. NK could have opened their borders long ago, but what do you suppose would have happened to those in power? If his own people didn't kill him, some tribunal would. Remember
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[dcw3]

a conventional war between north and south korea would end very swiftly in defeat for the north...

Possibly, but not before millions die from artillery rounds hitting the south. And you're likely underestimating the simplicity of wiping out a military that is in very mountainous terrain, with many bunkers. The north is very adept at tunnel digging...I've seen a couple that were found, having been to the DMZ a few times.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[dcw3]

But I agree with you, NK's rulers are ultimately rational actors. Depraved, murderous, maybe even psychopathic, but certainly rational.

I'd call it survival. If they gave up power, they'd be executed, either by trial, or mobs.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[dcw3]

Yeah, I believe 2010 popular mechanics. Seriously??? Artillery isn't rocket science, it's simple.

And there are other threats... http://nationalinterest.org/fe...

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[dcw3]

They are built inside fucking mountains and there are not enough MOAB's in stock to take them all out even if that thing can do it.

That doesn't mean a damn thing. If the artillery is shooting, then the location is known and America has plenty of accurate firepower to throw back and quickly take out their positions. Being inside mountains is great for defense but lousy for attack.

Tell us how many boots we have on the ground in ROK, and how many of those are actual warfighters...not pencil pushers, cooks, secretaries, etc. I'll wait for you to come back with something reliable to back up your dumb statement above.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[haruchai]

Missile defense will do little against artillery. Millions would die in the south, but don't let that get in the way of your idiotic statements.

So have we been arming them or not? With what? Colt .45s?
As for your fear of their artillery, it's vastly overblown
http://www.popularmechanics.co...
http://www.popularmechanics.co...

"Most of North Korea's guns can't actually reach Seoul—only about 700 of the North's 20,500 artillery pieces can reach the city. U.S. and South Korean artillery and air power would be quickly shutting down whatever enemy artillery they can find, and South Korea has an excellent civil defense system with underground shelters for most of Seoul's population."
So stop believing L'il Kim's threats

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[dddux]

" their glorious leader regularly displays both extreme aggression and extremely small-minded decision-making." Oh, just like Trump then.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[LWATCDR]

None are in service and they are based on the Golf class sub from the 1950s.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[eric_harris_76]

For all we know, the U.S. Navy has already sunk a North Korean sub or three that got too far from home.

Obligatory Red October quote: "You've lost another submarine?"

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[dcw3]

6 under construction...1 active. This doesn't include all of the other subs they've built. "Based upon", doesn't mean useless or obsolete. Look at the U.S. fleet of B52s and U2s...those are 50s based.

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[haruchai]

You're ready to believe the NK propaganda that's several decades old

"Artillery isn't rocket science" - well played, lol

If SK was so deathly afraid of NK, why keep building up Seoul ? The country is as big as Indiana, with plenty of coastline and the narrowest part of the country is the border,
But they, one of the most advanced Asian countries, decided to stick 25% of their oh-so-vulnerable population within 50 miles of their only enemy

What's Korean for "how fucking stupid are we?"

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[DarthVain]

Um no.

#1 North Korea has the 4th largest military in the world. Larger than Russia. Now while you can discount that by saying that it isn't the most modern, and that much of the technology is old 1960 Russian hand me downs, it by no means has a "relatively weak military". Much of the technology of war hasn't changed all that significantly in terms of what is an effective rifle or what is traditional artillery. Times that by a million or so soldiers and that is no small thing. Sure their motive assets like navy, planes, and armor aren't exactly on par with more modern standards, but again they have more than a significant amount, and if you are talking about a land war, it is still won or lost by boots on the ground, and they have a lot of boots.

#2 Having said that, it is my opinion at least, that should NK step too far out of line it will be their #1 ally, and also #1 on the largest military in the world list that will put the firm hand on NK's shoulder, none other than China. They have more to lose than anyone by NK going rogue, already strategically placed (i.e. they share a border and are not oceans away). The counter point to that is if pushed to defend NK, that would be larger issue. For China, should NK collapse one way or another, their issue would be how to deal with millions upon millions of refugees, never mind the now unemployed million plus military armed with surplus weapons...

Re: NK *is* a credible threat

[haruchai]

" Poor people don't pick up and move"
Of course they do. That's a big chunk of America's - and the world's - history.
And if the government decides to move them, they get moving or get moved

Re:NK *is* a credible threat

[LWATCDR]

None have launched a missile.
Based on the Golf which was outdated when it entered service. The Golf was based on the Whisky which was based on the German XXI class.
The B-52 is was state of the art at that time. The current today the B-52 is only a threat to a major power because of it's cruise missiles.
Nope the NK boat is just not a threat to the US. maybe to Japan and US bases in Korea, Japan and maybe Guam but only maybe. And all the people talking about how Diesel electric boats are better than SSNs and SSBNs they do not understand that they are only better when they do not have to transit long distances. They can sit and be very quite but once they start moving things go south for them. They have a very short range on battery and they have to go slowly. Once they have to use the diesel they are very loud and near the surface. To transit, they have to snorkel or run on the surface. The latest Virgina class SSNs are as quite as an SS at low speed. They use a natural circulation reactor that does not need cooling pumps and advanced propulsor in place of a prop, and everything is rafted.
The US never had a problem tracking Golf class subs even in the 1960s. Tracking one of the Korean boats will be a piece of cake. And yes the US probably has more than one sub dedicated to keeping tabs any NK missile boat that dares to go to sea.

Time to send in America's top diplomat

[Anonymous Coward]

Dennis Rodman
I'd add a sarcasm tag , but given the current president it makes sense!

Failure is the mother of success?

[MrCodswallop]

I jest.

Re:Who cares

[TechyImmigrant]

Just bomb them ASAP. It's clearly a criminal organization at the top. Time to put an end to it. 10,000 tomahawk missiles to strike the targets near the border at 3am. Loads of MOABs JDAMs for the rest of the country. My estimate is 2 days all done and after that South Korea can clean up the rest and integrate.

So when they put out all the paranoid rhetoric that the US is only out to invade and bomb them, are they really being paranoid?

Re:Who cares

[prisoner-of-enigma]

So when they put out all the paranoid rhetoric that the US is only out to invade and bomb them, are they really being paranoid?

My drill instructor gave me some useful advice about thirty years ago: if someone says they want to kill you, you should take them seriously. Let's keep in mind that since the late 1950's North Korea has been militant, aggressive, threatening, and destabilizing no matter who was in the White House. Various administrations have tried various sticks and various carrots to get them to change all to no avail. If the Norks are afraid of external animosity they only have themselves to blame.

Nonsense

[argStyopa]

From the 'debunking' note, I wouldn't credit Mr Drollette as being as informed as he seems?

"âoeNorth Korea wants to demonstrate it has a deterrent. To do so, it needs to be able to credibly threaten the US mainland or our overseas assets. For that, you have to make the bomb (more correctly, the warhead) small enough to mount on a missile,â "
No, they don't.
Certainly, any of the 4 old Romeo-class subs that the DPRK has could accommodate a sizable warhead, and it's entirely unlikely that US antisub systems would be audacious enough to sink it if it was cruising in the Los Angeles littoral. Surfacing just outside or in the harbor, and suicidally popping that nuke would devastate Los Angeles even if it fizzled.

"North Korea has no reason to feel threatened? "
Oh bullshit. The US ROK exercises have gone for what, 50 years? To assert 'they infuriate the north who believes them a practice for invasion' is about as credible as Little Kims score of 18 at golf, or the insistence that he simply doesn't poop. Let's say that they have no rational reason to feel threatened and leave it at that.

"the best and most realistic approachâ"or rather, the âleast badâ(TM) approachâ"is to negotiate a freeze on Pyongyang's nuclear program. Such a deal would in some sense be a new version of the 1994 Agreed Framework, which succeeded in slowing the North's nuclear program."
The 1994 Agreed Framework was a complete and TOTAL FAILURE. It was intended to halt the DPRKs nuke program, and the rationalization that it "slowed it down" is utterly without basis except to the pollyannas who believe sanction just might work the next time.
How gullible are you?
"âoeUnder an updated version of the agreement, North Korea would impose a moratorium on nuclear tests and long-range missile launches. It would give inspectors access to its nuclear facilities. In exchange, Pyongyang would receive food, humanitarian and development aid on a regular basis"
This is EXACTLY what the 1994 Agreement tried to do, they took the food, the aid, and cheerfully violated their side of the agreement. I'm reminded the colloquial definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over expecting different results".

I'm not a warmonger. I don't believe the US can "send in special ops" or nonsense like that. But to assert blithely that an agreement with DPRK can result in anything but rewarding them with more time and western goods to limp along in their goofy separate reality is ludicrous.

Re:Nonsense

[bongey]

Problem is North Korea's subs are diesel electric, which basically makes it impossible for North Korea to be stealthy at all. The US probably has no problem tracking NK entire submarine fleet.

Re:Nonsense

[Strider-]

Not necessarily true. Diesel-electric submarines are extremely quiet when running off their batteries. Canada has a (small) fleet of diesel-electric Submarines, and is often called upon to play the role of "Opposition Forces" in military exercises. In 2007, during an exercise in the north Atlantic, HMCS Corner Brook was able to sneak up on a British carrier (HMS Illustrious) and snap a photo through her periscope. All without being detected. It's also pretty routine for Canadian subs to "Sink" US carriers during exercises in the pacific.

Don't discount it because it's "just" diesel electric.

Now, when it comes to the North Koreans, wouldn't trust the reliability of their crews or vessels, but that's a different question entirely.

Re:Nonsense

[ColdWetDog]

The ONLY deterrent that NK needs - and already has - is massed artillery within range to hit the SK capital in minutes. The only thing that would take out the vast majority of those weapons would be a nuke - right outside the largest city in the country which houses half the population of the country. Oops.

Sure, you can blow NK into tiny little bits, but then you're going to take enormous civilian casualties. Perhaps historians can justify this 100 years hence but not even the Orange Fluff is psychopathic enough to give that particular order.

Re:Nonsense

[chromaexcursion]

Actually, that's exactly the justification.
To prevent civilian casualties in SK, a massive bombardment will be required.
There is no peace in Korea, only an armistice. A state of war exists. NK blatant threat of SK civilians makes SK civilians a targets
Think Berlin and Dresden, but in NK. WWII rules apply.

Re:Nonsense

[bongey]

Incorrect, diesel electric subs do not have the range required, nor are the NK subs modern. Yes the best diesel electric subs made by the Swedish are quiet, but they still don't have the range.

Re:Nonsense

[Xyrus]

...Surfacing just outside or in the harbor, and suicidally popping that nuke would devastate Los Angeles even if it fizzled....

Popping a nuke of NK type at ground level wouldn't do much. If it fizzled even less so. They've yet to demonstrate that can reliably launch without exploding, let alone one capable of carrying a "Little Boy" type of payload.

Regardless, whatever joy little Kimmy got from nuking LA would be extremely short lived. A pre-emptive nuclear strike on one of the largest and key shipping ports in the world? That's basically giving the US a "I can do whatever the fuck I want to you now, bitch!" badge. That won't end well, especially with our own little tinpot in charge here.

Re:Nonsense

[SuricouRaven]

Seems overcomplicated. A NK nuclear deterrent doesn't need to reach the US, just any US ally. South Korea is easiest. Japan would do. Besides, they wanted to get a nuke the US, the easiest way might well be to stick it in a shipping container and bribe/threaten someone to smuggle it onto a shop exporting goods from a South Korean port to somewhere in the US.

Re:Nonsense

[argStyopa]

Check your facts.

That is why I specifically referenced their old Romeo' s, and not the 50-some other subs they have.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
Range: 9000 miles.

And I'm well aware that US antisub forces probably know precisely where each of these subs are every moment. That doesn't matter. Unless we somehow knew that Little Kim was planning a suicide attack, AS I SAID ALREADY it's exceedingly unlikely we would cold-bloodedly sink a sub even if it sailed straight into the harbor.

And yes, while a surface burst of such a weapon will impair it, the typical side blast expected from a DPRK nuke is about 20kt - the blast at Nagasaki. That would be easily enough to destroy the U.S.'s largest port completely, and cost probably tens of thousands of lives...assuming of course there's not already an anonymous container already sitting in an unused corner of a yard there with a bomb waiting for its owner to pull the trigger.

Re:Nonsense

[whodunit]

This claim has been debunked for years: http://nautilus.org/napsnet/na...

North Korea in no way has the capability to "destroy" Seoul with conventional artillery.

Re:Easter missile

[TechyImmigrant]

It's an easter missile.

You know... easter.. the day we celebrate where Jesus turned into a fluffy bunny and went around shitting out chocolates and colored eggs.

Back in biblical times, reanimated zombies were not a joking matter. When the zombie control team rolled back the stone and found it gone, they new they had a new outbreak. It was all hushed up by couching things in terms of messiahs and apostles and fake magic tricks, but the select few knew and their ancestors went on to make zombie movies to prepare us.

Re: Who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just kidnap the plump dictator, keep him away from Twinkies and then have Dennis Rodman talk him into ordering a peaceful reunification?

The power structure and cult mythology driven nature of North Korea is such that anyone who follows Kim Jong Un into power that is not his direct relative would lack legitimacy as a leader.

Re:Who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

Freaking this. Maybe they can't do anything to us *right now*, but they've got nukes, they're working openly and diligently to build a usable delivery system, and they constantly threaten the US and others with nuclear attack. If goddamn Saddam and Gaddafi with their mustard gas needed to be overthrown, then why is NK allowed to exist?

Re:Who cares

[Alwin Henseler]

Delivering a massive first strike would only give the NK regime an excuse to say to its people "see, we told you this would happen", and then retaliate in equal measure. Which would only leave losers on both sides.

NK should not be given that excuse. Shoot down their missiles if any of them come too close to population centres outside NK. Sink a sub if it comes too close to US (or other friendly nation) shoreline. Covert sabotage operations, fine. A good dose of cyberwar, why not. Stationing extra troops near border areas as a show of preparedness. But DO NOT be the one to push the start button for a full-on war. Especially if nukes might be involved.

Ultimately it's up to NK people to deal with their own regime. And that regime will come to an end - like everything else. It's only a matter of time.

Re:Who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand your point, but frankly allowing such a vile contemptible regime to exist, one that purposefully starves its own people and obnoxiously threatens others even though its capabilities are underwhelming, is essentially condoning murder and genocide.

It would be better to destroy them, then allow them to continue. Unfortunately, it's in China's best interest to have such a nasty concentration of viciousness in order to parlay with Japan, South Korea, and the US.

Therefore - nothing will be done as usual.

Re:Who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

If goddamn Saddam and Gaddafi with their mustard gas needed to be overthrown, then why is NK allowed to exist?

China. That's it and that's all. If it were otherwise, Kim would already be dead.

Re:Who cares

[FrankSchwab]

It's entirely possible the 25 million people in and around Seoul care.
Just what do you think would happen when those Tomahawks show up on NK radar? Do you believe that NK doesn't have one or two nuclear warheads on top of short-range missiles with Prime minister Hwang Kyo-ahn's address on them? And hasn't let China, South Korea, and the US know?
There's no doubt that, if the US decided to "Desert Storm" the country, they could land hundreds of missiles and destroy all or most of NK's fixed military. Whether or not that would lead to destruction of Seoul, or a nuclear exchange with China, within 72 hours of the first salvo is an exercise left for the reader.

Just like finding a crashed airliner under the sea

[dbIII]

Truly we have fantastic technology today.
We can find a submarine just as easily as we can find a crashed airliner under the ocean given a couple of years to look for it.


Some things are just not easy kids - no flying car for you!

Re: Who cares

[guruevi]

The figure head has little impact. NK is lead by its military and China has a huge influence. NK is basically China's Cuba and Castro reigned well into his deathbed.

Re:Just like finding a crashed airliner under the

[fyngyrz]

Well, it's not quite that cut and dry; subs move, make noise, wakes, create magnetic anomalies in motion (and image subtraction can trivially find one of those consequent to continuous MA observation of any area where the sub is, assuming the monitoring capability is available), and while no one tries to track each jetliner using sufficient resources to never lose sight of it, there's good reason to think that we would be keeping track, as best we can with the resources we have available, any NK asset that presented a potential nuclear threat.

That said, even if we're on them at any one point, it doesn't mean we can't lose track of them, either. Even a hardware failure of a tracking resource could put this kind of thing into play where one might ordinarily assume it wasn't. This stuff is devilishly complex. Lots of ways for tracking to fail.

Airborne laser

[p51d007]

The U.S. has been experimenting with the ABL for years. Any chance they had this thing flying anywhere near the Korean area?

Re:Who cares

[dbIII]

Worse than that.
Seoul is in range of North Korean artillery emplacements.
They do not have to rely on possibly ineffective missiles to reduce Seoul to rubble within a very short time of being given the order.

Re: Who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

It will have a big impact. The military loyalties will fragment and there will be infighting. When Kim Jong Un took power it almost happened.

Can't put my finger on it

[Tablizer]

For some reason, the North Korean soccer team makes me nervous.

Re:Can't put my finger on it

[ColdWetDog]

Ow! My balls!

Sound waves in water not so simple

[dbIII]

There's so many reflections and distortions in an environment that isn't quiet to start with that finding a noise and then the source of it isn't so simple.
Subs are tested for noise emission in fjords for a reason - even the diesel ones. Compared with background noise they are not all that noisy. Even the old USSR ones that NK has would be hard to find unless you know where it is going.

Re:Sound waves in water not so simple

[fyngyrz]

I'm aware. I write signal processing software for the signals that drive spectrum / waterfalls. Some people would be quite surprised as to what can be done with only a hint of data.

Again, no details can be laid out here, but some tracking is definitely possible. My point was that losing track is also possible, so yes, we agree.

Re:Sound waves in water not so simple

[dbIII]

I wrangle computers for geophysicists these days but I used to be an engineer.
It's hard enough sorting out signals going through rock to find something really big let alone something like water.
I'm just addressing the smug "it's so easy posts" like the GP.

Re:Sound waves in water not so simple

[chromaexcursion]

I agree with you. but are you referring to bottom scanning, or mid depth?

Re:Sound waves in water not so simple

[dbIII]

Physics gets in the way of all of it. Water density (especially with variable amounts of salt in it) is not constant or even constant with depth. That affects the way sound is transmitted since the speed of sound is a function of density.
There's a lot out there on the net but some fiction sums up the problems well such as Frank Herbert's submarine novel "The Dragon Under the Sea".

Re:Sound waves in water not so simple

[fyngyrz]

They're probably thinking of things like near-field synthetic aperture sonar. You can get images as clear as this, which gives the impression that water is no obstacle. Distance, however, changes what one can do, and there's quite a difference between passive monitoring and active monitoring as well.

Re:Sound waves in water not so simple

[mikael]

Rock is high density material with fault lins and all sorts of weird echoes going by what the earthquake people do to reconstruct the interior of the Earth from seismograph returns. The weather people are doing something similar by reconstructing the structure of a storm cell from the shock waves caused by lightning flashes. Sonar is a bit easier, only the big lumpy stuff like wrecks, bridges, the seabed and organic lifeforms return direct echoes.

Re:Sound waves in water not so simple

[dbIII]

You have ignored that water density is not constant or even consistantly variable with depth so it's not "a bit easier". A current of a different temperature to the water adjacent returns reflections for example.
It's not like fucking radar.

Re:Sound waves in water not so simple

[dbIII]

Do you really think a moving vessel can do that sort of thing on the fly every few seconds over a full range of depths out to ranges of a dozen miles or more? I can see why you people think it's easy if you do, and kind of see why so many people fell for Trump and his wall.

Re: Sound waves in water not so simple

[GeorgeL.Rivera]

Actually, NK submarines do not possess deep water capabilities as do our own, so your, "All depths hypothesis," fail. We should actively hunt for NK subs with our own assets until we have located them and then sink them if they refuse to surrender. NK has no need for or business with a submarine fleet. All they do is present a danger to all the countries within their range.

Re:Just like finding a crashed airliner under the

[chromaexcursion]

A crashed airliner is stationary, dead and cold in over 2 miles of water. A moving sub is live, and hot, in less than 200 meters of water. The NK diesels have to come to snorkel depth, maybe 30 meters. Not so hard to find

Re:Who cares

[FrankSchwab]

They could do significant damage - but "reduce to rubble" is quite an overstatement.
What do you think the expected lifetime is of an NK artillery battery wielding a gun big enough to hit Seoul, after their first shot? The US and South Korea have some very excellent counter-battery radar systems; I would guess that the artillery arrayed on the south side of the border would be most immediately tasked with placing rounds on the origination points of NK artillery rounds.

Bureaucrats have tools which were supposed to work

[raymorris]

Yes, go government workers have tools which should allow them to keep track of NK subs, with fairly good reliability, if none of them ever get bored and start playing solitaire instead of staring at the screen. We *could* track their subs, more or less. We could also lose track of one.

Ps US misplaced 8 of our own nukes

[raymorris]

To put it another way, the United States can of course track where it's own nukes are. Yet, there are 8 American nuclear weapons out there lost somewhere, nobody knows quite where they are. One is probably about 60 miles off the coast pf Japan, we're not sure.

The US should also be able to keep track of North Korean subs. But ...

Re:Ps US misplaced 8 of our own nukes

[drinkypoo]

The US should also be able to keep track of North Korean subs. But ...

Nukes don't make noise. Subs do. We have sonar emplacements which do this job. We don't even need submarines to handle NK submarines, because they are such ancient technology. We can handle them with the sonar warning net and a torpedo boat.

If you want to talk about Russkies who can presumably still afford a decent sub now and then, that's reasonable. They might be able to get close. NK, though? That is just not a credible threat. They couldn't get here without being allowed to get here.

Re:Ps US misplaced 8 of our own nukes

[dbIII]

These ARE Russian subs. They just have a different owner.

Re:Ps US misplaced 8 of our own nukes

[drinkypoo]

These ARE Russian subs. They just have a different owner.

Great, so the system will already have them in the database. But they are not the latest and greatest russian subs.

Re:Ps US misplaced 8 of our own nukes

[dcw3]

So, if I'm a soldier with a gun, I certainly should be responsible to know where that gun is. But if enemies have guns that are pointed in my general direction, do you think I'd be paying really close attention to those?

Re:Ps US misplaced 8 of our own nukes

[dcw3]

These ARE Russian subs. They just have a different owner.

Not so much
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Ps US misplaced 8 of our own nukes

[dcw3]

At most, 4 are former Whiskey class. They have roughly 75-80.

Re:Just like finding a crashed airliner under the

[dbIII]

Not so hard to find if you are looking in exactly the correct place and they are not running on batteries.

Sadly physics gets in the way of Tom Clancy fantasies.
Search and rescue plus a lot of other things would be easier if those fantasies were real.

Maybe read Frank Herbert's "The Dragon Under the Sea" or some non-fiction on the topic. Submarine detection isn't so easy even if the subs are old.

If if makes you feel better

[rsilvergun]

NK doesn't want to kill us, they just want us to keep up enough pressure on them that their populace feels threatened enough not to question why things never get better while they're being told their leaders are nearly God-like. You gotta do something with that disconnect.

And the best part? Both sides benefit. NK's ruling elite gets to stay in power because everybody's too scared to risk a changing of the guard and, well, so are we. What's that old phrase... "We've always been at war with Eurasia". Ya know, we're still at war with Iraq. Legally anyway...

Re:If if makes you feel better

[dcw3]

Ya know, we're still at war with Iraq. Legally anyway...

Really? When was war actually declared...legally?

Naw, it's because NK doesn't have oil

[rsilvergun]

or anything else besides millions of refugees. Nobody wants to pop the boil that is NK. It'd be a humanitarian nightmare that you couldn't easily ignore like we do now.

Re:Naw, it's because NK doesn't have oil

[Solandri]

It already is a humanitarian nightmare. It's just that by doing nothing, you can blame the North Korean government for it. If you manage to overthrow the NK government, suddenly you become responsible for the nightmare and critics blame you for things that would've happened anyway even if you had done nothing.

Amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

Who needs the government or the military when all of the experts are assembled right here on /.

Wow!

Re:NK is a real problem

[quax]

Predictions are difficult, especially with regards to the future.

You can also google all the predictions about NK's nukes. They unfortunately eventually panned out.

Getting a means to get their nukes close enough to the US is a much easier problem than to assemble one in the first place.

'China has a lot of influence over North Korea,'

[Anonymous Coward]

> 'China has a lot of influence over North Korea,'

That is in fact true.

China is the DPRK's largest export market by far.
It goes like this:
#1 China $2.34 billion/yr
#2 India $98 million/yr

Their single largest export is coal, at just under $1B/yr.
And China just stopped buying it last week.

Re:Just like finding a crashed airliner under the

[CrimsonAvenger]

Not so hard to find if you are looking in exactly the correct place and they are not running on batteries.

They're diesel boats. They can run on batteries during the hours of daylight if necessary, but they can't run on batteries long enough to cross the Pacific (realistically, they can't run on batteries long enough to go 100km). Most of the time, they'll be running on diesels, and can be heard by anyone within a 100 km or so.

And they can't outrun a nuke boat. Not even sounding like a freight train (diesel boat running at max).

Failed

[AndyKron]

David was "totally floored", but failed to realize that those missiles were probably hollow tubes.

Re:Who cares

[Cyberpunk Reality]

I'm not sure we want to set the precedent that bombing a country because it's leaders are criminals is okay. Out of self-interest, if nothing else.

Re:Who cares

[leonbev]

Yeah, we should just give it to Samsung and LG when we're done turning North Korea into a giant smoking crater. I'm sure that they'll make some really cool factories with the cheap land.

Re:Just like finding a crashed airliner under the

[LWATCDR]

The fact that this is marked as insightful shows just how bad Slashdot has gotten.
1. We know where the subs home ports are.
2. Subs make noise and move under their own power.
3. North Korea's subs all have to run their diesel to recharge their batteries.
4. The subs of North Korea are old and loud and easy to find if they leave home waters.

To give an example the USSR lost a Golf class SB just like the one the North Korean's have sunk 1500 miles off the coast of Hawaii in 1968. The US found and recovered part of it.
Had that airliner been of interest to the US it would have been tracked from the start until it hit the water. Also if the airliner was still an airliner and not a collection of parts spread across the Indian Ocean we would have found it.

Re:Who cares

[leonbev]

Of course, this is North Korea we're talking about. The missiles will probably blow up in their launch pads when they try to launch them and turn the area into a radioactive wasteland.

Re:Just like finding a crashed airliner under the

[drinkypoo]

We can find a submarine just as easily as we can find a crashed airliner under the ocean given a couple of years to look for it.

We have an extensive network of sonar devices monitoring our coastlines. If anyone tried to run a non-stealthy sub right up into our neighborhood, we would be informed of the attempt by automated systems long before they got anywhere close. Let alone our hunter subs which are continually patrolling. And it's not exactly an open secret where the sonar nodes are located, either. Even a stealthy sub might be detected by these means.

What we don't have is a similar network to detect planes. You would think that we would have medium-resolution, up-to-date satellite imagery of the entire planet right now, but we apparently don't. All we seem to have is low-resolution imagery, presumably for purposes like tracking sea vessels and observing nuclear launches. But maybe the military has much more and they just won't share their toys with the scientists, because fuck progress anyway

Re:Who cares

[drinkypoo]

So when they put out all the paranoid rhetoric that the US is only out to invade and bomb them, are they really being paranoid?

Yes. That's China, not the USA. Next question?

Re:NK is a real problem

[misexistentialist]

More like to be bombed accidentally by an ally, since their missiles are state-of-the-art

Re:Just like finding a crashed airliner under the

[Ol Olsoc]

The fact that this is marked as insightful shows just how bad Slashdot has gotten.

It's rather amusing the level of dumb that the folks who hate 'murrica will go to to fuel their fantasies of other countries destroying us.

Especially when it is a country like NK. A lot of The mouse that roared syndrome. The smaller the country that will presumably destroy us the more engorged their peens get.

When in fact, if there is one thing we are damn good at, it's protecting ourselves.

This even goes for nations like Russia, remember how if Helleree was elected, Russia was going to end up destroying the US in a nookyaler war? It don't work like that homies - cuz the math ain't there. As for North Korea, just possibly - but on the very low end of possibly, they might be able to sneak under our defenses, and just possibly, they might be able to fire a missile, and just possibly, it might actually work. I might do a three-way with Sophia Vergara and Taylor Swift too.

And after this incredible odds defying and semi pointless stunt, if successful, North Korea would cease to exist.

Re:Who cares

[TechyImmigrant]

So when they put out all the paranoid rhetoric that the US is only out to invade and bomb them, are they really being paranoid?

Yes. That's China, not the USA. Next question?

China who is putting out paranoid rhetoric, or China who is NK is claiming will bomb them?
 

Re:NK tech is non-existent

[ColdWetDog]

Nope. In the early 21st century, ICBMs are a solved problem. Especially when you're using surplus Russian gear. Simple, cheap. More or less effective.

Hell, in the US a single businessman can build modern ICBMs from scratch.

The warheads are a bit more of a problem, but again, it's not like a whole bunch of other people haven't been able to make them. Pakistan is not exactly on the list of Big Deals in the world.

Re:What about Anchorage or Honolulu?

[ColdWetDog]

What would Trump do if Kim did take out Anchorage?

Don't know what Trump will do (probably first have to look it up on a map), but the rest of Alaska would rejoice.

A wretched hive of scum and villainy.

Re:Why has the US not learned?

[PPH]

Bombing people - to stop them hating you - doesn't work. It's true.

London, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki. We all still hate each other.

Re:Who cares

[MightyMartian]

But mainly they're starving because the regime redirects so much of the economic output, including agriculture, to its military. And the US and South Korea have intervened before to save NK lives by sending in food, and often enough one of the reasons for increased NK belligerency has been because they need to bolster their own economy, and use threats and low-level hostility to convince everyone to come back to the table. This is an old game, and one that has worked out rather well for the regime, though obviously not for the citizens of NK.

Re:NK is a real problem

[iggymanz]

oh? NK has a deployable nuclear weapon? or do they have very primitive low-yield devices that can only work from a stationery test bed on the ground?

Re: Just like finding a crashed airliner under the

[Anonymous Coward]

Surface and pretend to be drunken fisherman at nighttime.

Re:Just like finding a crashed airliner under the

[haruchai]

My bet is that you'll be motorboating Vergara or shaking it off Swift's tail before Fatty the Third manages to get a sub within the 200 mile limit

Re:Just like finding a crashed airliner under the

[Ol Olsoc]

My bet is that you'll be motorboating Vergara or shaking it off Swift's tail before Fatty the Third manages to get a sub within the 200 mile limit

Wonder if I could convince the ladies it would be a public service?

Re:Just like finding a crashed airliner under the

[AaronW]

What's to stop them from just following closely with a big noisy container ship?

Re:Just like finding a crashed airliner under the

[sumdumass]

Subs are found by the noises they make, not looking for debris in their wake. The US has a vast network of underwater listening microphones stretched out across the Atlantic and the pacific which would be the first indication of a sub of the type NK has. Not to mention that passive sonar is likely already employed (given the nature of the NK threats and US banter) and any NK sub is likely already being tracked so if it moves it would be a lot easier to detect than a crashed airliner.

I'm not going to say it would be easy, but it would be a lot easier to detect than a crashed airliner that went off radar in an area known for strong and unpredictable currents.

Re:Just like finding a crashed airliner under the

[ceoyoyo]

Diesel subs are very difficult to track. Much harder than nuclear subs. While submerged. The Achilles heel of diesel subs is that their speed and range is severely limited while underwater, because they have to operate on batteries.

However, there are tricks you can play to get around that. Carrying the sub underneath an innocent looking surface ship until you get close enough for it to make the trip underwater, for example. But a shipping container would probably be easier for a first strike.

Re: Just like finding a crashed airliner under th

[nitehawk214]

I bet their Captian has a tattoo on his dick.

Re:Just like finding a crashed airliner under the

[dbIII]

That's a conclusion to jump to that kind of matches what people's gut feeling would tell them after following a noisy truck , but maybe you should read something on the topic.

Re:Just like finding a crashed airliner under the

[dbIII]

It's a better written submarine fantasy.
On an earlier post I suggested reading non-fiction or that novel - I fucked up this time and just mentioned the novel. It has a bit describing some real problems with sonar that result from different water densities, which don't just vary with depth.

Re:NK is a real problem

[quax]

I wouldn't expect them to be bigger than what was dropped on Hiroshima.

Re:Just like finding a crashed airliner under the

[dbIII]

Well, that all applies if you have a destroyer sitting above every sub watching it all the way and if none of them are already at sea.
Finding a sub in an ocean - think about it and think in terms of physics and not magic!

Re:Just like finding a crashed airliner under the

[dbIII]

So suggesting a difficult thing is hard is hating America?

Re:Just like finding a crashed airliner under the

[dbIII]

With respect, with a nuke and a missile with a range of a few hundred miles "close" just doesn't seem good enough. Their short range missiles work.
That is why it is not a trivial problem to solve.

Re:Just like finding a crashed airliner under the

[dbIII]

I'm not going to say it would be easy,

That's all I'm saying here, that it's not going to be as easy as all the people who are pretending that submarines are no threat are suggesting.

Re:Just like finding a crashed airliner under the

[CrimsonAvenger]

ex-submariner. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

So, what are you using to justify your knowledge of the subject?

Re:Just like finding a crashed airliner under the

[dbIII]

Talking to some submariners who were on diesel ships and getting marine seismic stuff to work.
While you are completely correct I should have pointed out that they do not have to cross the entire Pacific on batteries to evade detection, but you already knew that didn't you? Is someone really going to be listening with the proper equipment within 100km every time they fire the motors up? Even if they are, is that going to accurately pinpoint them? I'll let your incredibly unlikely range of 100km stand - even then it's a fucking big ocean and they apparently already have stuff out of port.

The "great man" theory strikes again

[dbIII]

Exactly. A military decapitation seems highly improbable. Actually getting at Kim Jong-un with a missile strike is probably as likely as getting at President Trump or Putin with a missile strike. In other words, it's close enough to impossible to not be worth it. That leaves assassination

When are you people going to wake up. The current Kim is exactly what you get when a terrifying leader dies - that's exactly how he got there. Killing him isn't going to improve things. The system that put him in place has plenty of others to replace him so long as that system remains.
NK is ruled by a batshit insane class that is a cross between an aristocracy and a cult worshiping an earlier Kim. There is plenty more where he came from.

Re:The "great man" theory strikes again

[swb]

His death alone *probably* won't change anything, but the dynasty's ability to self-perpetuate has a lot to do with the cult of personality involved, and without the personality at the center it might implode.

I find it hard to fathom that outside of a very tight circle of insiders, the DPRK leadership is really interested in falling on their swords to preserve what amounts to "the system" there. I just don't think that there's enough authority diffused into the system for succession to work, especially to members outside the circle. Would you be willing to die to continue the system in DPRK that has you living in fear if you have anything like authority or living like slave if you don't if there's the remotest chance the system could collapse?

Say what you will about the Chinese and the Soviets as dictatorships, but both of those nations have/had a party apparatus with enough influence to plan and manage succession outside of family dynasties. Even though Xi Jinping can basically flout the rules for his benefit, he still has to work hard politically to ram it through the central committee.

AFAICT, DPRK really doesn't have anything like that in their party apparatus. I think the situation is more akin to Ceausescu in Romania. Segments of the Securitate fought to regain control, but otherwise Romania collapsed quickly, with the military failing to act in support of the leadership. I suspect China has back channels into the military leadership with instructions they will be supported if they stand down in the even of a catastrophic death/leadership vacuum.

Re:The "great man" theory strikes again

[dbIII]

With the greatest possible respect (since I'm sure you are good at something and I've just got you at a bad time) the cult of personality you describe revolves around someone who has been dead for a long time. There are many who can serve as a "high priest" to that cult. I've got no idea why you think a tight circle is enough to run a country - that "great man" fairytale has got you.

DPRK really doesn't have anything like that in their party apparatus

And you know this how exactly?

I'm not calling you stupid, just a bit lazy on this topic and prone to jumping to conclusions.

Re:The "great man" theory strikes again

[swb]

With the greatest possible respect (since I'm sure you are good at something and I've just got you at a bad time) the cult of personality you describe revolves around someone who has been dead for a long time.

No. In dynastic cults of personality, the current living leader is always elevated to the same status as their predecessors and new attention focuses on them and their glory. The current Kim is the current focus of the cult of personality -- it's his image front and center, flanked by his ancestors. Failure to promote the living leader as the center of the mythology results in the myth of the dead leaders overshadowing the current leader, leading to unpleasant comparisons and belief that the current leader isn't adequate. It takes continuous promotion of the living leader to maintain his power and centrality to the myth.

I've got no idea why you think a tight circle is enough to run a country - that "great man" fairytale has got you.

Centralized decision making and authority, with extremely limited authority granted to subordinates. There's an elaborate police state apparatus designed to keep subordinate administrators loyal and in line, but it's all extremely dependent on a narrow group of people at the top who have anything like the autonomy represented by "running a country".

The "great man" problem is a lesser issue relative to DPRK because of its status as a tightly controlled, dynastic authoritarian state. In its case, there really is a "great" or at least central figure. The "great man" is a larger problem in more open societies or explaining historical events (eg, WW II). It's actually a defining feature of a nation like DPRK by definition as an authoritarian dynasty, unless you want to argue that Kim Jong-un is merely a prop and figurehead for an elaborate and diverse apparatus of state not actually controlled by Kim.

And you know this how exactly?

And you know I'm wrong how?

Re:The "great man" theory strikes again

[dbIII]

No. In dynastic cults of personality, the current living leader is always

Bzzt - wrong. Not like that in North Korea. It's pretty well the cult of the worship of the dead Kim. A lot has been written about that strange place.

And you know I'm wrong how?

A lot has been written about that strange place and I'm going by that instead of gut feeling. Talking to someone a few times who fled the place in the 1960s helped a bit too. Talking to someone who lived on the Chinese side of the border until about 2000 and who had a lot of contact with refugees filled in more gaps.

BTW - what's with the lecture? It's kind of annoying to get one from someone who doesn't have a clue so goes on and on about something different..

Re:Just like finding a crashed airliner under the

[dbIII]

Sorry one more thing.
You will know a lot more about the topic than I (since I'm getting most of it second-hand), so what do you have to say about the allied diesel subs getting very close to carriers in joint exercises?
Surely since that has happened a few times it must be a bit more than a trivial exercise to find one.

Hybrid or mockup?

[sabbede]

If I was a North Korean general, I'd have had a bunch of fake missiles whipped up to confuse foreign intelligence analysts.

Re:Just like finding a crashed airliner under the

[dbIII]

realistically, they can't run on batteries long enough to go 100km

Sorry to reply yet again, but Australia's Collins Class Diesel Submarine has a published range on batteries of 890km.
While the subs we are discussing are Russian and a bit old they are likely to have the best modern batteries for the task from China - so are you really sure about that 100km guess?

All I'm trying to suggest here is that the subs are not so trivial to find that there is no point seeing them as a possible threat as a poster way above suggested. Can we really assume they can't get out and get close enough to cause trouble in South Korea and Japan?

Re:NK is a real problem

[iggymanz]

but the point is can they even make a weapon capable of being dropped from any plane they own? I don't believe they are yet

Re:Just like finding a crashed airliner under the

[dcw3]

Suggested reading
http://www.hisutton.com/Analys...

Like to, soldiers actually get shot. Don't know

[raymorris]

You'd certainly LIKE to know the precise location of any weapons pointed your direction. In reality, soldiers get shot, often by weapons they didn't know the location of. Quite a bit of effort goes into *trying* to figure out where the enemy is precisely because it's difficult.

There is one unfortunate fact about being a defender. NK has about 70 subs. We don't even know for sure exactly how many there are, at least not publicly. Our goal is to know where ALL their subs are, ALL of the time. Their goal is to sneak ONE sub away, perhaps under a freighter, ONE time. If we're 99% successful at tracking their subs, that's not good enough. A defender needs a 100% success rate in order to be safe, an attacker with a 0.1% success rate could blow up a city.

As mentioned before, it's much easier to know where your own weapons are then to know where the enemy's weapons are, yet we sometimes fail at keeping track of even our own weapons.

Re:Just like finding a crashed airliner under the

[dcw3]

What we don't have is a similar network to detect planes.

Well, we sorta do to defend against bombers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Just like finding a crashed airliner under the

[Dr_Terminus]

You should take some time to read up on SOSUS...

Re:Just like finding a crashed airliner under the

[dbIII]

You should take some time to read up on how sonar is not completely equivalent to radar. You get reflections from different densities of water as well as the surface and bottom, plus the ocean is very noisy.

Re:Just like finding a crashed airliner under the

[Dr_Terminus]

Trust me I understand sonar. Just because something is noisy doesn't mean you can't extract a signal from it, especially with modern signal processing. If sonar was so faulty, they certainly wouldn't have invested so much into making subs as silent as possible during the cold war.

Re:Just like finding a crashed airliner under the

[dbIII]

It's not about "faulty" it's about difficult, and no, I do not get them impression that "trust me" is enough. I know a fair bit about modern signal processing especially in the context of seismic data processing so what methods exactly are you talking about? Do you really think things have progressed to the point where submarines are entirely useless because they are trivial to find which is what you and so many others seem to be suggesting?

Potemkin missiles

[eric_harris_76]

"what's inside is anyone's guess"

What matters is: can they reliably launch successfully and reach their target, whether launched from within North Korea or from a submarine which manages to get somewhat near the U.S.?

The available evidence suggests the answer is "no". Which means they're only useful for bluster (if not launched) or as a desperation move (if launched).

Eventually, things will likely get desperate, unless the end-game is like East Germany or Czechoslovakia, and it just kinda fizzles out.

That is not likely to happen in the immediate future, and maybe never will be a likely end, but it's a possibility worth preserving. (How, I don't know.)

Re:Just like finding a crashed airliner under the

[Dr_Terminus]

No I'm not suggesting that submarines are trivial to find, but what I am suggesting is that non-silent submarines are not hard to find. Plant noise of modern nuclear subs is way below the noise floor in the ocean. The engine noise of a `60s diesel Russian sub like the North Koreans have is not. So they'll stand out like a sore thumb on SOSUS anytime they fire those engines up.

Yes they are, but for a different reason.

[scatbomb]

Yes, they are a threat. However, I doubt they could get their subs anywhere near America. Those old noisy subs would be detected and destroyed.

They are a threat because they could easily bomb Seol and kill millions with the flick of a switch. They have lots of missiles and dug-in defenses right next to the DMZ, which is also riddled with huge tunnels for transporting armaments and troops. If they attacked Seol it would result in a massive bloodbath, America would step in, China would fight back to keep their buffer state and it could spark WWIII. China doesn't want WWIII, nor does the US. They are working to tone things down (hopefully somehow remove Kim in the process) so that they can keep a buffer state between China and South Korea, a US ally.

For those saying "ignore DRPK" you are ignoring the danger. If the regime gets deliverable nukes they will blackmail all countries surrounding them for money, food, resources and could then actually become a real international power. If you think they won't do it, remember how sane and rational Japan is, yet they justified the attack on Pearl Harbor because we wouldn't sell them fuel or steel.

Re:Just like finding a crashed airliner under the

[dbIII]

No I'm not suggesting that submarines are trivial to find

Then I have no idea why you jumped on this thread that started with me being critical of someone that suggested exactly that.

Re:Just like finding a crashed airliner under the

[dbIII]

Are you ever going to reply to my questions ex-submariner? What's the point of telling us you know all about the topic without dropping us a few hints?