|
mediadave posted:A reasonably interesting paper about recent North Korean TV drama and how it has changed under Kim Jong Un: Really good read, thanks.
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 06:54 |
|
|
Warbadger posted:"Overfly" does not mean "land in". Without something slowing them dramatically, those kill vehicles aren't landing in Russia. Even China is unlikely. The vast majority of what they will be flying over is the Pacific Ocean and the ballistic tracks of the missiles will not be in the direction of Moscow, St. Petersburg, or the vast majority of strategically important bases which happen to not be in the Eastern boondocks. "The Americans might be airbursting nukes in the stratosphere over Vladivostok and Buttfucknowhereski, Siberia" seems like an odd way to start WWIII. In general targets on the west coast result in parts of the interceptor landing in the pacific and targets on the east coast result bits landing in the arctic. The problem lies in targets in the middle that result in Siberia. This would mostly be boosters and remains from successful hits. As for kill vehicles that miss their targets no clue. I can only assume they will be on a steep climb with a lot of energy behind them. We have pretty good reason to be suspect of the capabilities of Russian radars in the region. They have routinely been releasing bad data of past North Korean launches. If you feel this is part of some deeper Russian game to mislead us about their capabilities well feel free.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 07:24
|
|
|
Mozi posted:I wish I could find what I was thinking about specifically. Not from Graham, but there are people who think like him. That negotiations obviously aren't working so might as well bite the bullet (as it were.) Was it this guy? Because he's being retweeted an awful lot by a lot of people. https://twitter.com/CER_Grant/status/937067218390700034
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 07:34
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Sure, but not enough to take out multiple missile sites before they get a chance to launch something stupid and to take out the masses of artillery on the border with South Korea. A round trip from Nebraska takes a long time. Nuclear missiles don't take round trips and it's not like blowing up South Korea artillery really helps Northeast Korea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 12:15
|
|
|
brockan posted:Was it this guy? Because he's being retweeted an awful lot by a lot of people. It was either him or somebody reporting on the same set of meetings, I believe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
"deterrence won't work against a madman" honestly seems more relevant to Trump than to any other party in this affair.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
RaffyTaffy posted:In general targets on the west coast result in parts of the interceptor landing in the pacific and targets on the east coast result bits landing in the arctic. The problem lies in targets in the middle that result in Siberia. This would mostly be boosters and remains from successful hits. As for kill vehicles that miss their targets no clue. I can only assume they will be on a steep climb with a lot of energy behind them. They are either releasing bad data to damage the US position to the benefit of a state they support or the most recent generations of Russian long range search and air defense RADARs are substantially less capable than those built in the 60's. You tell me which one sounds more likely. Concerning the booster thing - spent boosters landing in Russia wasn't really the implication in the post I responded to. Boosters aren't the super sensitive part.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
I'd be surprised if there isn't a self destruct capability on the ABM interceptors. With all the velocity those things have after a miss it wouldn't take much to turn them into a multi-hundred square kilometer shotgun blast of debris.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
US interceptors don't explode, they're just a solid projectile that tries to hit the missile (to the best of my knowledge). If they miss they will just keep flying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
Mozi posted:US interceptors don't explode, they're just a solid projectile that tries to hit the missile (to the best of my knowledge). If they miss they will just keep flying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
What kind of war are they talking about. If US print another 1 trillion paper money to fund a land war. It's be another financial crisis.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:What kind of war are they talking about. If US print another 1 trillion paper money to fund a land war. It's be another financial crisis. Wouldn't it be a nuclear war at this point?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:Wouldn't it be a nuclear war at this point? I still don't think we'd launch a nuclear first strike, so that might be up to North Korea, or whatever's left of them after our conventional first strike. We admittedly don't have a great track record with our decapitation strikes though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Kavros posted:"deterrence won't work against a madman" honestly seems more relevant to Trump than to any other party in this affair. I was thinking the exact same thing. Kim needs to be more careful, Trump isn't measured like Obama was.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Tough call is, for all his bluster, Trump is bluffing when it comes to using force ('fire and fury', etc.) If he could I'm sure he would be happy with washing his hands of the whole thing and ceding the whole East Asian region to China. So on that score, NK could be correct in their theory that the US could be deterred from invasion or regime change by possessing nukes. However, given the natural filtering system of who has ended up working for Trump, there is no shortage of shortsighted military officers who would rather go to war than accept a NK with nukes. Just depends on who speaks to him last.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
One last question: how likely is the following scenario to happen? http://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/363326-how-one-north-korean-nuclear-armed-satellite-could-cripple-the-us
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:One last question: how likely is the following scenario to happen? Is that really going to be your last question?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
The better question is... Is this chart still accurate? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:The better question is... Heh, no. We're at maybe 50/50 of a conflict in the next several months, and it just keeps getting worse. BTW, even the idealest of ideal scenarios that involve a military confrontation with the DPRK - where their whole chain of command and strike capabilities are neutralized within 6 hours, and they don't manage to get a nuclear weapon past allied ABM - mean like half a million South Korean casualties in the first couple hours. This is just the initial exchanges, without ground invasion, without any nukes, and with increased allied preparedness compared to the current allocation of forces. This is the "short-lived and contained military conflict" scenario, where there's no occupation and prolonged guerrilla war because China steps in to take NK over after the allies dismantle its government with airstrikes. A highly developed nation, the world's 11th economy, sustaining this kind of damage in one go is simply unheard of in the modern era. The global market is gonna go loving wild.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:One last question: how likely is the following scenario to happen? I remember this movie, Pierce Brosnan suffed Tsunami afterward.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:One last question: how likely is the following scenario to happen? No, EMP is dumb and people who bring it up are dumb.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
BREAKING NEWS: Graham is full of poo poo https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2...h/#.Widm5XlryUk
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:I remember this movie, Pierce Brosnan suffed Tsunami afterward.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:BREAKING NEWS: Graham is full of poo poo well yeah. my honest opinion is if this poo poo happens. it start really really quick.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:https://twitter.com/W7VOA/status/938592028778254342 This dude was almost Secretary of State.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
It's been an exceptionally strange and stressful week for my family. The pessimism is starting to bleed to me but I still assume that lack of conflict is still more likely given literal decades of not-a-lot-of-conflict. Just not more likely enough.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 09:49
|
|
|
Mozi posted:No, EMP is dumb and people who bring it up are dumb. Why? Movies and videogames play up it's effect for dramatic effect but it's a real thing that exists. Starfish Prime knocked out lights and stuff 1000km away and that was by accident and not even a bomb set off with the intent to maximize EMP. North Korea could easily set a bomb off over the sea of Japan or even over north korea that did serious damage to Japan or South Korea but had a really muddy political response compared to if they used it to blow a hole in a city.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
It's not that it wouldn't harm electrical devices, it's that NK would get nuked as a consequence. It's not as if there is a big 'THIS WILL JUST BE AN EMP' painted on the side of the missile we can read before it goes off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Why? Movies and videogames play up it's effect for dramatic effect but it's a real thing that exists. Starfish Prime knocked out lights and stuff 1000km away and that was by accident and not even a bomb set off with the intent to maximize EMP. North Korea could easily set a bomb off over the sea of Japan or even over north korea that did serious damage to Japan or South Korea but had a really muddy political response compared to if they used it to blow a hole in a city. If North Korea does serious damage to Japan or South Korea with a missile, they're getting blown to poo poo. Doesn't matter if it's nuclear, EMP only, or just a conventional strike. Tensions are so high that the gloves are going to come off if they were dumb enough to actually start a war. How the hell would anybody see North Korea detonating a missile over Japan and go "Well, maybe we should just do some sanctions?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:If North Korea does serious damage to Japan or South Korea with a missile, they're getting blown to poo poo. Doesn't matter if it's nuclear, EMP only, or just a conventional strike. Tensions are so high that the gloves are going to come off if they were dumb enough to actually start a war. This is why there's still arguably a big difference between a North Korea with a couple nukes and a North Korea that continues developing a robust second strike capability over the next decade though. If they pulled some batshit stunt and left it at that ten years from now, factoring in the increase in damage they could do if we went all out in punishing them would make the decision about what kind of response to take a lot harder, and the uncertainty about that response might create incentives for risk taking by the North Koreans if they think they can get away with it. That problem exists with other nuclear states too of course, but North Korea has generally shown a greater willingness to take risks than many countries, and it's not like the world should feel great about other countries having nukes either really--over a long enough time span, one of those near misses isn't going to miss. Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Dec 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
The concern is not them launching an attack out of the blue (though possessing the capability to do so is certainly not a comforting thought), the concern is that this is something they could conceivably attempt in the event of a conflict. Any military intervention in North Korea is absolutely an 'use them or lose them' scenario as far as the DPRK's brass is concerned. The fact is that they already possess Nuclear Weapons, and they totally will attempt to put them to use if they're attacked. In what fashion is TBD, but as another poster pointed out, provoking an EMP disruption over the peninsula is within their capabilities - hell, it wouldn't even be intercepted by THAAD since they could detonate a MRBM at a certain altitude during the boost phase - and the political response would be nowhere near as strong as if they launched it against a densely populated city. In the same fashion, they could use them defensively, nuking their own territory to hamper an allied ground invasion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
It seems like if North Korea blew up any nuclear bomb dead center over the center of Tokyo and pumped enough EMP in that the phone lines caught on fire then of course that will be treated as an act of war. But if they blew a bomb up over north korean soil and it reached out just barely over the border and fried one iphone they probably would have a hard time driving anyone to "nuke the poo poo out of them" or anything, same as the way we grumble when they fly a rocket over japan but we don't actually instantly nuke them for it. It seems like there is actually a huge grey area for them to escalate into with EMP, where there is a line somewhere between "we overvolted one iphone that was exactly at the edge of the border and it broke the heaphone jack" and "we wiped out the entire electrical grid" where at some points on that line there would be war and as some points there wouldn't be and it'd be another huge way to escalate and push boundaries. Like we would definitely have a war about the total destruction of Japan's electrical grid. Would we have a war about the temporary breaker shutdown of part of Shimonoseki's electrical grid?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:the political response would be nowhere near as strong as if they launched it against a densely populated city. Disagree. They may get away with another ground test but if they lob a missile with a warhead attached and detonate it, even if it does ZERO damage to another country, that's likely the end of their regime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It seems like if North Korea blew up any nuclear bomb dead center over the center of Tokyo and pumped enough EMP in that the phone lines caught on fire then of course that will be treated as an act of war. You're still running into a problem: how do we know this was intentional? It's not like a movie where the mafia don shoots next to someone's head and then says "If I wanted to kill you, I wouldn't have missed." If you tried that on someone in real life, it would be perfectly justifiable to shoot you in the face or arrest you for attempted murder. If North Korea detonates a nuke in the air that only causes some EMP damage to part of Japan, how do we know that was the intent? How do we know that they didn't intend to cause widespread damage to an entire country and just lacked precision? How do we know it wasn't meant to be an actual nuclear strike that would wipe out Tokyo and just didn't do what it was supposed to do? If you shoot next to a cop's head because you want to intimidate him, don't expect any response except being killed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Why? Movies and videogames play up it's effect for dramatic effect but it's a real thing that exists. Starfish Prime knocked out lights and stuff 1000km away and that was by accident and not even a bomb set off with the intent to maximize EMP. North Korea could easily set a bomb off over the sea of Japan or even over north korea that did serious damage to Japan or South Korea but had a really muddy political response compared to if they used it to blow a hole in a city. And all that damage was repaired within days, sometimes within hours. The most difficult thing to repair took a few weeks, which was the microwave relay phone/data links to some of the islands, but we don't even use such things anymore and modern business microwave relays would be much easier to repair. Particularly because it was so far away. But you're a complete ignoramus if you think detonating a nuclear bomb to attack someone in any way won't be treated as, well, using a nuclear bomb to attack someone. Owlofcreamcheese posted:It seems like if North Korea blew up any nuclear bomb dead center over the center of Tokyo and pumped enough EMP in that the phone lines caught on fire then of course that will be treated as an act of war. PS the EMP that they detonate on their own soil or in the sea off their shores to just barely touch South Korea or Japan... that would wipe out North Korea's own infrastructure and they're the least prepared in the region to repair that! There'd be no reason not to go ahead and invade a now defenseless North Korea at that point. fishmech fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Dec 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
Chadderbox posted:Disagree. They may get away with another ground test but if they lob a missile with a warhead attached and detonate it, even if it does ZERO damage to another country, that's likely the end of their regime. Goddamnit. Read my whole post again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:You're still running into a problem: how do we know this was intentional? That seems like the exact same thing NK does with shooting missiles in the direction of or over Japan. They have been pushing that boundary for years. Maybe every test going in the sea of japan is a kinetic bomb that just missed really bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:That seems like the exact same thing NK does with shooting missiles in the direction of or over Japan. They have been pushing that boundary for years. Maybe every test going in the sea of japan is a kinetic bomb that just missed really bad. I think it's possible to calculate the projected trajectory of the missile within certain limitations once you've got sufficient data on its speed, angle, etc. It's possible that the people who would actually be able to say "This is an attack and not just a test shot into the ocean" would have that determined before the missile has actually landed. I believe all of the missiles that pass over Japan pass really far over Japan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:That seems like the exact same thing NK does with shooting missiles in the direction of or over Japan. They have been pushing that boundary for years. Maybe every test going in the sea of japan is a kinetic bomb that just missed really bad. North Korean missile tests are tracked from launch (often since before launch), and their trajectory is determined before there's a firing solution for ABM (since you know, you need the descent trajectory in order to intercept the RV). Allied forces know full well where DPRK BMs are headed, and respond accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 06:54 |
|
|
Willo567 posted:One last question: how likely is the following scenario to happen? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQeQWWKKvq4
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 21:16
|
|
