North Korea, Sanctions, and Kim Jong-un

[prisonermonkeys]

I guess his change of heart was just a coincidence.

Or it's in line with Chiba's interests. Having a nuclear-armed lunatic on the doorstep of a billion people isn't in their intetests.

The US under Trump, is doing everything possible to defend South Korea from North Korea.

By sending more military assets to the region than there has been in sixty years and pushing increasingly aggressive and militant rhetoric in the direction of said nuclear-armed lunatic who has repeatedly threatened to attack at the first sign of provocation? How exactly does that defend the South?

The crazy fat boy is going to do what the crazy fat boy wants.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, he is actually pretty predictable. If anybody is going to kill us all, it's Donald Trump.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

They pretty-much built the last one too, the Russians hadn't got around to finishing it. You know what it's like with a shed project, you buy all the bits of Amazon but never have the time.

I recall it being 3/4ths done and able to float when they got it, so I mean that 25% must of been real hard work. As I said no one can doubt them on this new ship. The new vessel looks great so good job on them. More than I can say for North Korea's arsenal that would have been lovely circa 1968.

 

[TheCracker]

More than I can say for North Korea's arsenal that would have been lovely circa 1968.

That's the same year as the US's Nimitz-class carriers.

 

[Imari]

That's the same year as the US's Nimitz-class carriers.

It's remarkable how much military hardware is either very old or directly descended from very old technology. A few flagship items aside, a lot of the military works with stuff that has been around in one form or the other for the last several decades. Because when your life depends on it reliability is king. For example, the M16 has been around since the sixties, and while the M4 is now becoming the new standard it's still a variant of the basic design.

Sixties era technology is more than lethal enough in the vast majority of circumstances.

 

[TheCracker]

It's remarkable how much military hardware is either very old or directly descended from very old technology. A few flagship items aside, a lot of the military works with stuff that has been around in one form or the other for the last several decades. Because when your life depends on it reliability is king. For example, the M16 has been around since the sixties, and while the M4 is now becoming the new standard it's still a variant of the basic design.

Sixties era technology is more than lethal enough in the vast majority of circumstances.

Well indeed. When you're dropping billions on stuff, you're going to want it to last. Carriers are designed to be relevant for half a century (with refits).

 

[axletramp]

I don't know about anyone else, but when I see another 'North Korea intensifies missile testing' headline and images of hundreds of missiles being merrily fired off into the sea (like today), I can't help thinking that might not be such a good idea when you're strapped for cash and those missiles are supposed to be used for defending your country.

 

[Liquid]

Well indeed. When you're dropping billions on stuff, you're going to want it to last. Carriers are designed to be relevant for half a century (with refits).

The Boeing B-52 was first rolled into service in 1955, an astonishing 62 years ago, and is expected to continue still until the 2040s.

 

[BobK]

I wouldn't think the NK boomers are that much of a threat to the task group; ICBMs really don't make good anti-ship missiles.

True

As a followup to the above exchange, I found this article quite amusing. Basically they're saying the Vinson and indeed the entire task group has a "fatal flaw" because they don't have the capability of shooting down ICBM's.

And here I used to respect Newsweek. *sigh*

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

That's the same year as the US's Nimitz-class carriers.

Yes but unlike the Nimitz, which has gotten updated constantly, North Korean sourced weapons aren't the same, and that's not to count the several weapons sourced during the First Korean war from the U.S.

So turn that to circa 1998 for the one ship not "carriers"

It's remarkable how much military hardware is either very old or directly descended from very old technology. A few flagship items aside, a lot of the military works with stuff that has been around in one form or the other for the last several decades. Because when your life depends on it reliability is king. For example, the M16 has been around since the sixties, and while the M4 is now becoming the new standard it's still a variant of the basic design.

Sixties era technology is more than lethal enough in the vast majority of circumstances.

The M4 is the standard the new standard or potential is stuff like the HK416. The problem is (and why I respect China's method) is that it costs billions of dollars to manufacture new weapons and even more money to actually fund the competitions that get said contracts. It's usually up to the military to provide a reason for something new, over that of just updating something old to something new/modern. It's difficult to find funding for new weapons development and production especially during sequestrations and then back and forth between the government and contractors on payment. Big reason why certain projects don't see the light of day until a decade or more after being signed off on.

I'm sure if it was up to the contractors they'd be creating new models as often as a car manufactures, it's pretty cool that even old items still work after so long as you pointed out.

North Korea's money for military seems to go directly tower land and sea based Ballistic Missiles and making a nuclear warhead. Which is why all their other stuff is about as updated as the day it came. Which as we know is difficult considering how pressed for funds they supposedly are.

 

[Com Fox]

With all this news of Donald Trump vs. Kim Jong Un, something that goes to my mind is after this is all over and Australia gets nuked as a sacrifice, if North Korea's regime is defeated, how will the North Korean people be able to live in the outside world? Or even that, what would happen to North Korea if they lost their regime, the country would have no ruler and generate several rebel groups.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

With all this news of Donald Trump vs. Kim Jong Un, something that goes to my mind is after this is all over and Australia gets nuked as a sacrifice, if North Korea's regime is defeated, how will the North Korean people be able to live in the outside world? Or even that, what would happen to North Korea if they lost their regime, the country would have no ruler and generate several rebel groups.

First off what evidence do you have that several rebel groups would form? If anything an interim government would be set up by the remaining parties of the six-parties talk, with a big influence being between China, U.S. and South Korea. Nothing suggests that rebel groups would spurt up all over like in the middle east which has factions due to various reasons, one being religious sects.

As for people living in the outside world, research those who have either defected or found amnesty in other nations from North Korea.

Also why would Australia be a sacrifice via nuclear destruction, compared to that of South Korea or Japan?

 

[Com Fox]

First off what evidence do you have that several rebel groups would form?

It wasn;t my definitive answer, it was a speculated thought since North Korea has been developed in this regime for decades.

If anything an interim government would be set up by the remaining parties of the six-parties talk, with a big influence being between China, U.S. and South Korea. Nothing suggests that rebel groups would spurt up all over like in the middle east which has factions due to various reasons, one being religious sects.

So, something like what happened after the Nazi regime fell in Germany, I can see that.

Also why would Australia be a sacrifice via nuclear destruction, compared to that of South Korea or Japan?

https://thewest.com.au/news/world/north-korea-targets-darwin-in-nuclear-threat-ng-b88456493z

Granted, I'm taking this with a bit of salt as like you said SK and Japan would be more on their priority and what I said was more of shrug off line.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

It wasn;t my definitive answer, it was a speculated thought since North Korea has been developed in this regime for decades.

Sure but the regime flows around one person, and this is quite literally cutting the head off a snake kills everything else. Plus I'm sure their is plenty of intel to figure out who else needs to be dealt with if it came to that.

So, something like what happened after the Nazi regime fell in Germany, I can see that.

It's the most likely scenario, but again the U.S. since Bush has been the hardliner against North Korea while the other parties (not sure on Russia) had a different approach or desire. So while it'd be nice, the time in history you're using had parties actually agreeing on a course of action. Here it's more of "yes Mr. President we agree that a nuclear North Korea doing free testing and demo runs of missiles is bad..." and that's about as far as the similarities end. I'd say the only other hardliner is Japan.

https://thewest.com.au/news/world/north-korea-targets-darwin-in-nuclear-threat-ng-b88456493z

Granted, I'm taking this with a bit of salt as like you said SK and Japan would be more on their priority and what I said was more of shrug off line.

I mean anyone that is a risk to survival of N. Korea is potentially on the wrong side of the barrel, including China. Which is the most least likely targeted of them all.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

It would be great to see North Korea fall to the South, but I don't see that happening. China would never allow it. My second choice in a post Un North, would be that it is annexed by China. Chinese is the fastest growing second language there, and while the Chinese are not exactly the freest people on the planet, they are a lot better off than the North Koreans.

 

[Touring Mars]

https://thewest.com.au/news/world/north-korea-targets-darwin-in-nuclear-threat-ng-b88456493z

Granted, I'm taking this with a bit of salt as like you said SK and Japan would be more on their priority and what I said was more of shrug off line.

I find that unintentionally hilarious - Darwin?? It's a bit like saying 'We would target Sydney if only our missiles could reach that far, but in the meantime, watch out Darwin!!'

Ironically, a North Korean attack on Australia would earn their entire country a Darwin award.

 

[TheCracker]

Yes but unlike the Nimitz, which has gotten updated constantly, North Korean sourced weapons aren't the same, and that not to count the several weapons sourced during the First Korean war from the U.S.

That's assuming that the North hasn't also updated their inventory. Which they have.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

That's assuming that the North hasn't also updated their inventory. Which they have.

Yes I acknowledge that in my post, but say that it is limited, which from U.S. intel and others allied with the U.S. is the claim. Also, even if they have some newer weapons there is no indication that they are equal to the weapons of the selling nation. For example Mig-29s in North Korea, may not have the latest avionics and weapons due to costs, so while they have the planes, they're not as capable as say a Russian or Chinese counter part.

 

[TheCracker]

Yes I acknowledge that in my post, but say that it is limited, which from U.S. intel and others allied with the U.S. is the claim. Also, even if they have some newer weapons there is no indication that they are equal to the weapons of the selling nation. For example Mig-29s in North Korea, may not have the latest avionics and weapons due to costs, so while they have the planes, they're not as capable as say a Russian or Chinese counter part.

Not having the very latest kit doesn't matter so much when you have the numbers. Which they do. Outdated as their armed forces undoubtedly are, any conflict with them would bring about massive casualties on both sides due to the pure size of their military and the fact that it's probably geared towards defence in the first place. You also seem to be insinuating that if anything kicked off between the US and North Korea that China and/or Russia would side against North Korea. That is a great unknown and probably the biggest reason why things haven't already kicked off. They both supported what became DPRK during the Korean War against the South and the US, why would that be any different now?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Not having the very latest kit doesn't matter so much when you have the numbers. Which they do. Outdated as their armed forces undoubtedly are, any conflict with them would bring about massive casualties on both sides due to the pure size of their military and the fact that it's probably geared towards defence in the first place. You also seem to be insinuating that if anything kicked off between the US and North Korea that China and/or Russia would side against North Korea. That is a great unknown and probably the biggest reason why things haven't already kicked off. They both supported what became DPRK during the Korean War against the South and the US, why would that be any different now?

No I'm not insinuating anything, rather inferring based on the six-parties meetings over the last decade, the voice of reason that China has tried to be toward North Korea, warning them not to invite a war to the peninsula.

Also they supported it many years ago, is ground for an argument that is quite weak considering how much both nations have evolved since then, sure the CPC is ruler of the land in China, but it's not a close mirror image of what it was. Two Russia supported North Korea because of a budding communist ideal, something they no longer share and haven't for some time. Russia isn't siding with China or the U.S. and rather during talks has been mediator and peaceful voice hoping for a diplomatic solution more so than any other nation of the six-parties it could be argued quite easily.

Having the latest kit does matter, what you're talking about is a ground offensive first off, and in a direct conflict between North Korea and the U.S. from DoD documents it seems quite clear in the current state. Yes casualties will happen, but highly unlikely to be "massive" for the U.S. There would one be strategic sea, air offense before a ground offense even took place, to destroy critical strongholds that would hinder a simple ground attack. What the U.S. sucks at is being lawful government builder after dismantling a region, but the dismantling part we've got down pat.

The main issue is defending the ROK, and the suggestion of how to do that from the U.S. and South Korea themselves. Such as South Korea also being allowed to have a nuclear weapon, to complete the mutually assured destruction theory.

 

[unit-one]

The Boeing B-52 was first rolled into service in 1955, an astonishing 62 years ago, and is expected to continue still until the 2040s.

B-52 flies more years than the time from the first airplane to B-52
1903 to 1952 = 49 years
1952 to 2017 = 65 years

 

[BobK]

The Boeing B-52 was first rolled into service in 1955, an astonishing 62 years ago, and is expected to continue still until the 2040s.

"Join the Air Force! Fly the plane your grandfather flew!"
-- alleged USAF recruiting poster

 

[Exorcet]

Not having the very latest kit doesn't matter so much when you have the numbers.

It matters quite a bit. There's a reason why so much military spending goes into technology rather than numbers. Back in 91, the Iraq military's air defense network was rendered nearly useless by stand off weapons and the F-117. They literally could not even see the latter and their only defense against it was to shoot wildly at the sky after they were hit by bombs. NK air defense units would have it even worse against B-2's/F-22's and the very best of their fighter force would be essentially useless vs F-22's. At the moment the US is sitting on top of air combat technology, tactics, and training after having shoveled piles of money into this area for decades.

I don't see the NK air force being of any significance in combat perhaps barring a preemptive strike. The US already has more F-16's alone than some other airforces' total aircraft count combined. Ground forces and missiles might be a different story though. I don't think a war is a good idea in any case.

 

[ryzno]

Anyone hear about a failed ballistics (test?) that landed in the Sea of Japan? Happened about a half hour ago I think.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Rex Tillerson says that failing to act on North Korea could be catastrophic; China makes it clear that it has not been sitting on a magic solution all along; and Russia says the use of force would be totally unacceptable:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...-on-north-korea-could-be-catastrophic/8482088

Meanwhile, the South Koreans are reporting that the North has test-fired another missile.

 

[Rage Racer]

1. Threaten North Korea with force.
2. They reply by doing test launches and scaring the neighbours.
3. Bill South Korea $1 billion for missile defense.
4. ???
5. PROFIT!

 

[Dennisch]

• Threaten North Korea with force.

• They reply by doing test launches and scaring the neighbours.

• Bill South Korea $1 billion for missile defense.

• ???

• PROFIT!

I'm pretty confident that NK will pull the same rabbit out of the hat as they have done before.

A deal will be made, NK will promise that they'll "stop" their nuclear program, massive amounts of foreign aid goes to NK, and this story will be debated again in a couple of years.

Just wait.

 

[Aki Ko]

Just wait.

I'm just curious on how they can afford all of these programs if they don't have much of a market. Afford anything actually.

North Korea (and America) reminds me of this scene:

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I'm just curious on how they can afford all of these programs if they don't have much of a market. Afford anything actually.

North Korea (and America) reminds me of this scene:

Because literally all their sources that they have go toward this program. Two they are the best nation at running illegal schemes, like some years ago, counterfeiting U.S. money. That is just one of many things they've been claimed to do, drug manufacturing and sales, illegal arms trade and so on. They're pretty good black market dealers

 

[Imari]

It matters quite a bit. There's a reason why so much military spending goes into technology rather than numbers. Back in 91, the Iraq military's air defense network was rendered nearly useless by stand off weapons and the F-117. They literally could not even see the latter and their only defense against it was to shoot wildly at the sky after they were hit by bombs. NK air defense units would have it even worse against B-2's/F-22's and the very best of their fighter force would be essentially useless vs F-22's. At the moment the US is sitting on top of air combat technology, tactics, and training after having shoveled piles of money into this area for decades.

I don't see the NK air force being of any significance in combat perhaps barring a preemptive strike. The US already has more F-16's alone than some other airforces' total aircraft count combined. Ground forces and missiles might be a different story though. I don't think a war is a good idea in any case.

It really depends what it is. I've heard stories that of the US spending a lot on countermeasures to protect their helicopters from MANPADS only to have them shot down by volley fired RPGs. Air superiority is definitely an area where tech makes a huge difference, especially with things like stealth. One F22 is probably good for dozens and dozens of lesser fighters, at the very least. On the other hand, the difference between an M4 and an original M16 is not massive.

With things like missiles...at the risk of sitting on the fence it could go either way. Tech level doesn't really matter unless there's defences in the way; an explosive is an explosive. And like the RPG story above, you can probably go a long way to defeating anti-missile defences simply by overwhelming them with large numbers of crappy missiles.

Military technology certainly has it's value, but I think it's easy sometimes to forget that more primitive technology used with cunning or simply in great quantity can be a match. Tech in a war zone is an advantage, not a guarantee. A gun is an advantage over a spear, but one guy with a gun still has a tough time against a thousand with spears, or even one Solid Snake with a spear sneaking up on him.

Just because North Korea doesn't have the latest technology doesn't mean that they're a pushover.

 

[Exorcet]

It really depends what it is.

I don't disagree. I limited my post to air power because I think that's an area where there really is a big one sided advantage. The majority of North Korea's aircraft were outdated back in the 90's and the advances in technology that have occurred since then would make it extremely difficult for any of their fighters to put up meaningful resistance to modern air forces. Active missiles coupled with multi target radars make those aircraft equipped with them 5 or more times more valuable than other aircraft based on the number of missiles that they can have in the air at once. An air war with Korea won't differ very much from the one between NATO and Iraq during Gulf I. That was essentially the kind of battle that western air forces have been created to fight. The kind of equipment available to NK doesn't have any advantages to exploit that I can see. There isn't any kind of asymmetry between military aircraft today and those from 2-3 generations ago. The modern ones are trying to do all the same things, but they do them better.
The way to gain an advantage from older technology is to exploit a weakness of new technology. Ease of manufacture/numbers can be such a weakness, but since the US has such a large military force, it doesn't apply to this situation. Just about the only (weak) asymmetrical advantage that I would attribute to the kind of aircraft that NK would realistically fly is speed. Fighters of the 60's and early 70's were more focused on speed than more modern aircraft so some of them (like the MiG-25) can still hold their own in that area. NK doesn't have MiG-25's or any similar aircraft though.

I've heard stories that of the US spending a lot on countermeasures to protect their helicopters from MANPADS only to have them shot down by volley fired RPGs. Air superiority is definitely an area where tech makes a huge difference, especially with things like stealth. One F22 is probably good for dozens and dozens of lesser fighters, at the very least. On the other hand, the difference between an M4 and an original M16 is not massive.

For fighters and attack aircraft there is a similar vulnerability to SAM sites, even with older SAM missiles. If used properly they can be hard to find and popup without much warning. The latest generation of stealth aircraft should be well protected against them though. One of the goals of stealth technology was to negate the threat of SAM's, and the success of the F-117 over hostile territory serves as a good indication of stealth's effectiveness.

With things like missiles...at the risk of sitting on the fence it could go either way. Tech level doesn't really matter unless there's defences in the way; an explosive is an explosive. And like the RPG story above, you can probably go a long way to defeating anti-missile defences simply by overwhelming them with large numbers of crappy missiles.

I agree. Even if NK's air force is wiped out, that wouldn't prevent North Korea from dealing damage to other nations. I think their ground and missile forces would have to be taken out all at once to prevent them from inflicting any casualties in the event of war. Mobile missile systems can be extremely problematic if you have no leads on where they might be. South Korea's proximity to the North is also a problem for obvious reasons. Even if I am right and NK has no real chance of defending itself, I think there are some real risks in provoking them. I don't want to see a war open up between them and anyone else.

Military technology certainly has it's value, but I think it's easy sometimes to forget that more primitive technology used with cunning or simply in great quantity can be a match. Tech in a war zone is an advantage, not a guarantee. A gun is an advantage over a spear, but one guy with a gun still has a tough time against a thousand with spears, or even one Solid Snake with a spear sneaking up on him.

Just because North Korea doesn't have the latest technology doesn't mean that they're a pushover.

True. I'm also less familiar with their naval and ground forces admittedly, so even if what I said was taken as completely accurate that doesn't leave them unable to put up a fight. During the original Korean War, the US claimed to have a 10:1 air power victory ratio and even managed to push the North all the way to China within a year. One year after that both sides were back at the North South border, as if nothing had happened.