US considering Preemptive Strike against North Korea.

ohnonotgmail

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

In a wartime scenario. You do not react perfectly, and lot of mistakes will be made. NK has 50 subs or more they going to set sail if they see a war coming and no way we will find them all.

they only have one capable of launching an icbm. that is the only one they will care about.

Cheerful Spring

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they only have one capable of launching an icbm. that is the only one they will care about.

NK are hard at work improving their military capabilities. How many subs have they got that would launch a nuclear tipped missile, that's unknown.

This photo should enlighten you.






This same missile they paraded alongside the ICBM missile fired recently.

1874

what photo? is that an invisible sub, they'll never find the thing

Cheerful Spring

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Eh the difference is NK has nuclear weapons and ICBM's. They also run propaganda on state TV calling for the destruction of the US. Nobody needs to make any lies up about NK, they are a very real threat. My personal opinion is that the US over the next 6-12 months will racket up the pressure on China to make a move and if that fails they will take Kim and the leadership out with a surgical strike and see where the cards fall.

Of course they are threat, nobody said that aren't. Yet lets be realistic and look at the root causes of the problem. United States is still a occupying power. There is no Chinese or Russian troops stationed in NK.

Is NK a terrible regime of course it is, but i still think we would not have this problem if, America minded it's own business. Vietnam was a war, that wasted lives. Did Vietnam become a rogue crazy state when the communists united the country?

Cheerful Spring

1874 wrote: »

what photo? is that an invisible sub, they'll never find the thing

The sub is on your right.

Skylinehead

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The sub is on your right.

That's a Kilo class - no ballistic missile capability.

Cheerful Spring

Skylinehead wrote: »

That's a Kilo class - no ballistic missile capability.

There actually Romeo-class submarines supplied by the Chinese.

North Korea has 7 to 10 Soviet subs that can launch nuclear missiles from the launch tubes.

We dont know if they have build home-grown submarines yet.


This is the Singpo Submarine ( Soviet) NK has about 10 or more of these. If NK can fire nukes this be the sub they be using. NK would be modifying this sub for that purpose.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

We all thought that before 9/11 and took them nearly two hours to get military aircraft over New York. And everyone was watching this on TV for over an hour.

The difference is that the military are watching NK:rolleyes:

smurgen

The U.S is not a god like empire.they couldn't track commercial jets on 9/11 and scrambled jets in the complete opposite direction.

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The difference is that the military are watching NK:rolleyes:

South Korea and America forces panicked when Kim subs left port one day and they could not find them.

https://news.vice.com/article/north-koreas-50-missing-submarines-have-apparently-reappeared-following-truce

Hank Scorpio

Shouldn't we point out their security and intelligence capabilities were far more lax pre 9/11? I don't think it's a fair comparison to compare then and now.

1874

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Soviet Union is so evil why they not send in their armies straight away to crush South Korea and South Vietnam and Cambodia?

Probably as fighting a de facto war using proxies is easier/cheaper and less damaging in terms of public opinion when your soldiers aren't coming home in body bags, see Afghanistan for the Soviets, Vietnam for the US etc. In the case of NK, the Soviet Union supplied military equipment and units of aircraft flown and maintained by Soviet forces and directly fought the UN/US forces, Im sure the extent of their militar and economic support went much further to prop up the side they supported. In the case of North Vietnam the Soviet Union heavily supported the Northern sides war effort, in both wars the countries involved had large numbers of willing/able/people pressed into service so there was no need to fight a direct conflict which could have led to an escalation, most of the conflicts fought during the cold war period were wars fought by proxies of the major powers (even when for the benefits of the proxies).

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the russian nuclear subs couldnt even move in the atlantic without the us navy knowing where they were. and they are are lot stealthier than a NK diesel that needs to surface regularly. i doubt a NK sub could even leave harbour without the US navy knowing.

Im sure the NKs have looked into submarine snorkels and diesel/electrics are generally quieter than their nuclear equivalents, the thing is you still have to find the things and Im sure they employ tactics and defensive measures to hide and defeat efforts to locate and destroy their military equipment.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Of course they are threat, nobody said that aren't. Yet lets be realistic and look at the root causes of the problem. United States is still a occupying power. There is no Chinese or Russian troops stationed in NK.

Is NK a terrible regime of course it is, but i still think we would not have this problem if, America minded it's own business. Vietnam was a war, that wasted lives. Did Vietnam become a rogue crazy state when the communists united the country?

Ive a lot of dislike for a lot of things the US did and still does, but NK is and never was like Vietnam, I dont think that if a United Korea under a northern ruled state had come about, that it would be anything like Vietnam.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The sub is on your right.

Thats starboard

smurgen wrote: »

The U.S is not a god like empire.they couldn't track commercial jets on 9/11 and scrambled jets in the complete opposite direction.

allegedly

ohnonotgmail

1874 wrote: »

Im sure the NKs have looked into submarine snorkels and diesel/electrics are generally quieter than their nuclear equivalents, the thing is you still have to find the things and Im sure they employ tactics and defensive measures to hide and defeat efforts to locate and destroy their military equipment.

the only subs that NK have that are slbm capable are russian golf class (actually the chinese equivalent) here is a little writeup on this submarine class. i have bolded the relevant parts.

To clarify – Type 033 is the Chinese designation and carried torpedoes and Type 031 carried both torpedoes and missiles (Type 6622 / Chinese 033 = Romeo class and 6631 = Golf class, respectively).

Note too how submarines of this era still retained the bow indicating much of their operational time could be expected to be spent on the surface. With the advent of nuclear power the beed for a surface ship bow disappears.

Defence source point to Chinese 033 as enhanced Romeo class insofar as the 033 had better sonar and a longer range. Both the 033 and 031 projects suffered from the Sino-Soviet split in as much that although China managed to launch its fist Romeo type sub in 1965 it was not serviceable until 1970.


In terms of an offensive platform it is regarded as a ‘noisy’ vessel, of an ageing design, incapable of operating safely in deep water, e.g. Pacific and suitable only for coastal defence and patrol duties. By the end of the 1990s china has decommissioned all the craft although 4 were sold to North Korea.

1874

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the only subs that NK have that are slbm capable are russian golf class (actually the chinese equivalent) here is a little writeup on this submarine class. i have bolded the relevant parts.

Obviously the Romeos arent in a class of the US navy's attack subs, Im sure most of their subs are older designs, although they have some indigenious built/designs of mini subs.
I should say Diesel/electrics are considered quieter in terms of contemporary nuclear subs, or thats what Ive always read. Id still be surprised if any diesel electric subs are ever completely surfaced as snorkels for running diesel engines and presumably exchanging air for the crew were in use during WW2, If they operate a large number of subs and build their own designs are attempting to fit SLBM's Im sure they can fit a snorkel.
It seems even NK doesnt have that many Romeos and their subs seem to mainly be for coastal waters, not necessarily a place they might be likely to be engaged by Nuclear attack subs, but maybe anti submarine surface ships and aircraft, they did manage to sink a SK ship undetected.
I cant claim to have any experience of detecting submarines but it seems it could be more difficult to do in coastal areas in shallower waters, where noise may be different than in deeper waters, maybe whatever noise is created is masked by that but I think most of their subs are newer than romeos.

Supergurrier

Diesel subs can be sneaky too. The Swedes had one the US hired in the mid noughties for a full two years to take part in war games against one of its carrier groups. In most simulated engagements it managed to avoid the support vessels hunting it and take out the carrier but launching multiple torpedoes which hit.

I can't remember the subs name. Only the fact it cost abit less than 100m usd to build.

Cheerful Spring

1874 wrote: »

Probably as fighting a de facto war using proxies is easier/cheaper and less damaging in terms of public opinion when your soldiers aren't coming home in body bags, see Afghanistan for the Soviets, Vietnam for the US etc. In the case of NK, the Soviet Union supplied military equipment and units of aircraft flown and maintained by Soviet forces and directly fought the UN/US forces, Im sure the extent of their militar and economic support went much further to prop up the side they supported. In the case of North Vietnam the Soviet Union heavily supported the Northern sides war effort, in both wars the countries involved had large numbers of willing/able/people pressed into service so there was no need to fight a direct conflict which could have led to an escalation, most of the conflicts fought during the cold war period were wars fought by proxies of the major powers (even when for the benefits of the proxies).



Im sure the NKs have looked into submarine snorkels and diesel/electrics are generally quieter than their nuclear equivalents, the thing is you still have to find the things and Im sure they employ tactics and defensive measures to hide and defeat efforts to locate and destroy their military equipment.



Ive a lot of dislike for a lot of things the US did and still does, but NK is and never was like Vietnam, I dont think that if a United Korea under a northern ruled state had come about, that it would be anything like Vietnam.



Thats starboard



allegedly

North Vietnam and South Korea in 1970 are communist states, poor agriculture peoples. They both had the same allies. And at the time, both countries had beloved leaders. And both countries had a civil war against an American ally. Not much difference really.

aloyisious

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

North Vietnam and South Korea in 1970 are communist states, poor agriculture peoples. They both had the same allies. And at the time, both countries had beloved leaders. And both countries had a civil war against an American ally. Not much difference really.

Is that mention of South Korea in 1970 a communist state an error?

Skylinehead

Supergurrier wrote: »

Diesel subs can be sneaky too. The Swedes had one the US hired in the mid noughties for a full two years to take part in war games against one of its carrier groups. In most simulated engagements it managed to avoid the support vessels hunting it and take out the carrier but launching multiple torpedoes which hit.

I can't remember the subs name. Only the fact it cost abit less than 100m usd to build.

Modern diesel-electric subs are stealthier than nuclear subs, in the right situation. They can run off battery power which is silent, a nuclear sub will always have pumps running in the reactor. They're not great in the ocean though, they need to almost surface to recharge the batteries with the daysil lad

LPC786

This will be foolish. North Korea can panic and may launch a nuclear attack first. This could be dangerous

1874

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

North Vietnam and South Korea in 1970 are communist states, poor agriculture peoples. They both had the same allies. And at the time, both countries had beloved leaders. And both countries had a civil war against an American ally. Not much difference really.

I dont agree, I see NK in a completely different light than Vietnam,
The US worked with/trained Vietnamese guerillas in WW2.

There really was no Dear leader of the like of NK, Ho chi Minh was different, revered, but so were others, there has been no family line of succession, none of the ridiculousness of explaining real circumstances in the world.
NK has been under an oppressive stalinist regime, the like of which Vietnam has not experienced.
There may be some similarities, but The Vietnamese wars, against the French, US and the Chinese was different to what occured in NK.
Firstly the Korean war was not a civil war in the sense of a split in a unified country, it was already divided and an invasion occurred, the UN/US did back the Southern side, its little heard of but I sure the SK did a lot of the fighting which upon thinking about it isn't really retold.
Even in vietnam Id be surprised if the vietnamese at the time or now would describe the war as a civil war, although they fought against the propped up forces of the south, they were essentially not fighting against vietnamese but for them.
Id say the US intervention in SK was welcomed against a dangerous regime/enemy,
but in South Vietnam, they propped up criminals and puppets. I go with the view that Vietnam as a conflict was wrong but inevitable given the opposing ideologies and international circumstances.
In Korea, Id consider that the war was right and its a shame that the NK political class/system was not extinguished instead of allowing it to fester for so long.

Its not that cut and dry in either circumstance, but if you're suggesting that left to their own devices a victorious NK would have ended up like vietnam then I completely disagree.

Cheerful Spring

1874 wrote: »

I dont agree, I see NK in a completely different light than Vietnam,
The US worked with/trained Vietnamese guerillas in WW2.

There really was no Dear leader of the like of NK, Ho chi Minh was different, revered, but so were others, there has been no family line of succession, none of the ridiculousness of explaining real circumstances in the world.
NK has been under an oppressive stalinist regime, the like of which Vietnam has not experienced.
There may be some similarities, but The Vietnamese wars, against the French, US and the Chinese was different to what occured in NK.
Firstly the Korean war was not a civil war in the sense of a split in a unified country, it was already divided and an invasion occurred, the UN/US did back the Southern side, its little heard of but I sure the SK did a lot of the fighting which upon thinking about it isn't really retold.
Even in vietnam Id be surprised if the vietnamese at the time or now would describe the war as a civil war, although they fought against the propped up forces of the south, they were essentially not fighting against vietnamese but for them.
Id say the US intervention in SK was welcomed against a dangerous regime/enemy,
but in South Vietnam, they propped up criminals and puppets. I go with the view that Vietnam as a conflict was wrong but inevitable given the opposing ideologies and international circumstances.
In Korea, Id consider that the war was right and its a shame that the NK political class/system was not extinguished instead of allowing it to fester for so long.

Its not that cut and dry in either circumstance, but if you're suggesting that left to their own devices a victorious NK would have ended up like vietnam then I completely disagree.

You do know i hope, the Korean war started 1950? North Korea was only under communist control for 4 years and at time everything was ok.

A civil war is two sides fighting same country. There is no in between or other explanation.

1874

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You do know i hope the Korean war started 1950. North Korea was only under communist control for 4 years and at time everything was ok.

A civil war is two sides fighting same country. There is no in between or other explanation.

Your name and grammar hints at you being a NK interloper

I do know the time period of the fighting, Im sure NK was a paradise, whatever its benefits then, how come it is still failing appallingly.

A civil war is a war between two organised factions in the same country, not two sides fighting the same country as you say. I read that the Korean war was a civil war but SK and NK were independently run as different countries from 1948.
and NK is an unnatural evolution as it could not exist in its own right in the way it does without Chinese support for all of its history.

Cheerful Spring

1874 wrote: »

Your name and grammar hints at you being a NK interloper

I do know the time period of the fighting, Im sure NK was a paradise, whatever its benefits then, how come it is still failing appallingly.

A civil war is a war between two organised factions in the same country, not two sides fighting the same country as you say. I read that the Korean war was a civil war but SK and NK were independently run as different countries from 1948.
and NK is an unnatural evolution as it could not exist in its own right in the way it does without Chinese support for all of its history.

I left school when i was 15, so i never claim to be an English expert. I don't think my English needs to be perfect to know the history or the world.

North Korea vs South Korea was a civil war. Every side agrees.

1874

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I left school when i was 15, so i never claim to be an English expert. I don't think my English needs to be perfect to know the history or the world.

North Korea vs South Korea was a civil war. Every side agrees.

Im not attacking you personally, Im kidding, so can you put the vx soaked rag away please.
Your grammar suggested to me that English was not your first language, cheerful spring just jumped at me as being the name of an oriental takeaway.

1874

1874 wrote: »

Your name and grammar hints at you being a NK interloper

Big man. I suppose grammar-fascism is preferable to the capitalist totalitarianism that for a long time characterised South Korea, which the DPRK has stringently opposed.

Why make a substantive point, when you can make a petty one?

jimmycrackcorm

Curly Judge wrote: »

An awful pity that General Matthew B Ridgway didn't go all the way to the Yalu River at the end of the Korean War.
The only thing that stood in his way was the cautiousness of President Truman.
The Chinese army was a busted flush at that stage.

A mistake repeated by George Bush in the first gulf war....

Cheerful Spring

1874 wrote: »

Im not attacking you personally, Im kidding, so can you put the vx soaked rag away please.
Your grammar suggested to me that English was not your first language, cheerful spring just jumped at me as being the name of an oriental takeaway.

You made me laugh. It's fine, i know my English is not perfect.

It can go both ways though. Some people write beautifully, but often write lot of waffle and are ill-informed about the subject. For me that's more worrisome then my English being bad.

1874

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Big man. I suppose grammar-fascism is preferable to the capitalist totalitarianism that for a long time characterised South Korea, which the DPRK has stringently opposed.

Why make a substantive point, when you can make a petty one?

lighten up, its not like we live in North Korea.
I know South Korea has not had a perfect history, but it isn't death camps, cults of personality, and excessive spending on military might while thousands die in famines. Some of the things NK has gotten up to are appaling and it would not have continued only for the support of China which seems to require a fake rogue buffer statelet on its border.

I should say, Im aware SK has had a far from perfect record, and as you say, it has been pretty bad t times. I recall watching the news of student protests in the 80's and just because it didn't look much different to protests and treatment in the West, say in Northern Ireland or the Poll tax riots or many other civil protests, does not mean I think that SK is some paradise either. However, beside NK, SK look good, Id say its likely most SKoreans are happy relative to NKoreans or at least happy they are not NKorean citizens.

Cheerful Spring

1874 wrote: »

lighten up, its not like we live in North Korea.
I know South Korea has not had a perfect history, but it isn't death camps, cults of personality, and excessive spending on military might while thousands die in famines. Some of the things NK has gotten up to are appaling and it would not have continued only for the support of China which seems to require a fake rogue buffer statelet on its border.

I should say, Im aware SK has had a far from perfect record, and as you say, it has been pretty bad t times. I recall watching the news of student protests in the 80's and just because it didn't look much different to protests and treatment in the West, say in Northern Ireland or the Poll tax riots or many other civil protests, does not mean I think that SK is some paradise either. However, beside NK, SK look good, Id say its likely most SKoreans are happy relative to NKoreans or at least happy they are not NKorean citizens.

The South Korean lifestyle can end at any time. Seoul will be a warzone if NK and America go to war. It would better serve Korea interest, if the communists took over 1950, and we let them be united. I just don't see United Korea acting the same way today? China and Vietnam are communist.

Cheerful Spring

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

A mistake repeated by George Bush in the first gulf war....

They had no plan in place to govern a country and not sure he would have got the support of Arab nations to takeover Iraq.