DRPK July 7th

Reports on current military activity
User avatar
DEFCONWarningSystem
Director
Director
Posts: 5991
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 10:26 pm
Contact:

Fri Jul 07, 2017 8:47 pm

apollonights wrote:
Fri Jul 07, 2017 7:11 pm
TL;DR - For planning purposes it would be wise to assume that North Korea has up to 500 KT warheads that they can use regionally. They are still a ways out from being able to even hit Alaska though, at least with what they've shown us so far. Not only that but we haven't even gotten into issues of reliability or missile defense.
While North Korea certainly has a long way to go before they are able to reliably deliver a missile accurately, I'd like to draw your attention to my weasel words. "Reliably" and "Accurately".

They can hit Alaska. They can probably hit the United States, at least the West Coast. They can strike with an EMP. Now, those missile may fail or go off course or miss the mark or not even detonate. In fact, it is very likely they will do one of those things if not all of them.

The concern is that people are so wrapped up in what North Korea can do reliably that they lose sight of what they can just plain old do. If only one out of 20 attempts makes it, does that matter?

While North Korea isn't likely to start throwing around missiles until their programme is ready, it is unwise to discount the threat they pose. If the US were to attack (or if North Korea decides to attack), they will use what they have, ready or not.

krzepice1976
DWS Staff
DWS Staff
Posts: 9478
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:39 pm
Contact:

Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:20 pm

The United States plans to carry out a new test of its THAAD missile defense system against an intermediate-range ballistic missile in the coming days, two U.S. officials told Reuters on Friday, as tensions with North Korea climb.
The test will be the first of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) to defend against a simulated attack by an intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM), one of the officials said. The THAAD interceptors will be fired from Alaska.
Asked by Reuters, the U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) confirmed that it aimed to carry out a THAAD flight test "in early July."
Chris Johnson, an MDA spokesman, said the THAAD weapon system at the Pacific Spaceport Complex Alaska in Kodiak, Alaska, would "detect, track and engage a target with a THAAD interceptor."
"The test is designated as Flight Test THAAD (FTT)-18," Johnson said. He did not elaborate.
Still, in recent testimony to Congress, Vice Admiral James Syring, then the director of the Missile Defense Agency, said FTT-18 would aim to demonstrate THAAD's ability to intercept a separating IRBM target.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSK ... +News%2529

User avatar
RiffRaff
DEFCON Data Analyst
DEFCON Data Analyst
Posts: 2173
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:09 pm
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana, US
Contact:

Sat Jul 08, 2017 12:07 am

DEFCONWarningSystem wrote:
Fri Jul 07, 2017 8:47 pm
apollonights wrote:
Fri Jul 07, 2017 7:11 pm
TL;DR - For planning purposes it would be wise to assume that North Korea has up to 500 KT warheads that they can use regionally. They are still a ways out from being able to even hit Alaska though, at least with what they've shown us so far. Not only that but we haven't even gotten into issues of reliability or missile defense.
While North Korea certainly has a long way to go before they are able to reliably deliver a missile accurately, I'd like to draw your attention to my weasel words. "Reliably" and "Accurately".

They can hit Alaska. They can probably hit the United States, at least the West Coast. They can strike with an EMP. Now, those missile may fail or go off course or miss the mark or not even detonate. In fact, it is very likely they will do one of those things if not all of them.

The concern is that people are so wrapped up in what North Korea can do reliably that they lose sight of what they can just plain old do. If only one out of 20 attempts makes it, does that matter?

While North Korea isn't likely to start throwing around missiles until their programme is ready, it is unwise to discount the threat they pose. If the US were to attack (or if North Korea decides to attack), they will use what they have, ready or not.
I have had training in disaster psychology, and I have witnessed first hand how average Americans react to fairly localized disasters such as floods and tornadoes. It is my opinion that from a psychological point of view ONLY - in other words, ignore the obvious differences in death and destruction - there is no difference between a 20 KT bomb and a 20 MT bomb if it's detonated on US soil. With the exceptions of December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001, the United States has not had to deal with foreign attacks of mass destruction on American soil. (Yes, I know Hawaii technically wasn't a state in 1941, but I'm still counting it). A huge chunk of the American population, IMHO, is completely convinced that we are invulnerable to such things. And when - not if - it happens, a lot of Americans won't be able to deal with either the event or the aftermath due to this psychological block. America will effectively go into mass shock and it will shut down. Whether it recovers or not is not something I can predict. But I feel fairly safe with my assessment of American behavior up to about 1 week after a nuclear detonation on US soil. After that, it's a crap shoot.
"It's in your nature to destroy yourselves." - Terminator 2: Judgment Day

apollonights
.
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2017 4:46 pm

Sat Jul 08, 2017 1:07 am

RiffRaff wrote:
Sat Jul 08, 2017 12:07 am
DEFCONWarningSystem wrote:
Fri Jul 07, 2017 8:47 pm
apollonights wrote:
Fri Jul 07, 2017 7:11 pm
TL;DR - For planning purposes it would be wise to assume that North Korea has up to 500 KT warheads that they can use regionally. They are still a ways out from being able to even hit Alaska though, at least with what they've shown us so far. Not only that but we haven't even gotten into issues of reliability or missile defense.
While North Korea certainly has a long way to go before they are able to reliably deliver a missile accurately, I'd like to draw your attention to my weasel words. "Reliably" and "Accurately".

They can hit Alaska. They can probably hit the United States, at least the West Coast. They can strike with an EMP. Now, those missile may fail or go off course or miss the mark or not even detonate. In fact, it is very likely they will do one of those things if not all of them.

The concern is that people are so wrapped up in what North Korea can do reliably that they lose sight of what they can just plain old do. If only one out of 20 attempts makes it, does that matter?

While North Korea isn't likely to start throwing around missiles until their programme is ready, it is unwise to discount the threat they pose. If the US were to attack (or if North Korea decides to attack), they will use what they have, ready or not.
I have had training in disaster psychology, and I have witnessed first hand how average Americans react to fairly localized disasters such as floods and tornadoes. It is my opinion that from a psychological point of view ONLY - in other words, ignore the obvious differences in death and destruction - there is no difference between a 20 KT bomb and a 20 MT bomb if it's detonated on US soil. With the exceptions of December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001, the United States has not had to deal with foreign attacks of mass destruction on American soil. (Yes, I know Hawaii technically wasn't a state in 1941, but I'm still counting it). A huge chunk of the American population, IMHO, is completely convinced that we are invulnerable to such things. And when - not if - it happens, a lot of Americans won't be able to deal with either the event or the aftermath due to this psychological block. America will effectively go into mass shock and it will shut down. Whether it recovers or not is not something I can predict. But I feel fairly safe with my assessment of American behavior up to about 1 week after a nuclear detonation on US soil. After that, it's a crap shoot.
I'd imagine a right-ward lurch and craving for security along with an uptick in patriotism. The United States would probably become something of an authoritarian surveillance state and depending on who is POTUS might become either Fortress America or double down on Pax Americana. Security and security theater would be demanded by the American people and they would be listened to. The border wall would be built and manned because damn it terrorists could sneak something into the country. Every piece of cargo entering the country would need to be inspected because there is no telling what is coming from overseas. I'd expect American police to go full militarized, depending on how many cities are struck we might have to have conscription just out of the need to rebuild quickly and man our armed forces (especially if this future timeline America doubles down on Pax Americana or is serious about manning that Southern border wall to make it actually effective).

All that said that wouldn't necessarily be the worst possible future for the United States. Given the other existential threats (I'm looking at you biological outbreak) it wouldn't be the worst thing for the United States to get more engaged in Civil Defense and Disaster Preparedness. It would be nice if our society could do such things without losing a city or two though. :| Of course I'm proposing a somewhat rational response to that event, the events after 9/11 should give you some insight that Americans don't always act rationally or completely irrationally in response to such disasters.

So what would Americans do? I wrote all that but who the hell really knows?

Librarylady
.
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 4:22 pm
Location: NYC

Sat Jul 08, 2017 1:55 am

9/11 was actually fairly small and localized compared to a nuclear bomb. I mean, don't get me wrong, it was scary as hell at the time -- especially for those of us living in NYC -- and I, personally, was a nervous wreck, BUT, most mass transit started running again by the end of the day, the lockdown on cars going into Manhattan lifted after 2 or 3 days (I think) and schools resumed after two days off. Air traffic was backed up, of course, and it was awhile before people who lived in lower Manhattan could go back home, but there was no interruption of food deliveries, clean water, or medical services, even in NYC. And except for the day of attacks, communications weren't disrupted.

People were frightened, and angry, but the world around us was still pretty much unchanged, at least physically. We were kind of hunkered down, but it was more out of a sense of shock then because we physically couldn't leave our homes. We still went to the store to buy groceries, we just didn't go out to dinner and drinks...with a nuclear attack that's going to be very different.

apollonights
.
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2017 4:46 pm

Sat Jul 08, 2017 2:05 am

Librarylady wrote:
Sat Jul 08, 2017 1:55 am
9/11 was actually fairly small and localized compared to a nuclear bomb. I mean, don't get me wrong, it was scary as hell at the time -- especially for those of us living in NYC -- and I, personally, was a nervous wreck, BUT, most mass transit started running again by the end of the day, the lockdown on cars going into Manhattan lifted after 2 or 3 days (I think) and schools resumed after two days off. Air traffic was backed up, of course, and it was awhile before people who lived in lower Manhattan could go back home, but there was no interruption of food deliveries, clean water, or medical services, even in NYC. And except for the day of attacks, communications weren't disrupted.

People were frightened, and angry, but the world around us was still pretty much unchanged, at least physically. We were kind of hunkered down, but it was more out of a sense of shock then because we physically couldn't leave our homes. We still went to the store to buy groceries, we just didn't go out to dinner and drinks...with a nuclear attack that's going to be very different.
True but eventually once it becomes clear that no more attacks are coming life will go on. Once it goes on though the political realities in the United States would be very different. Now a nuclear terrorist attack in a say a port would be a bit different because folks would wonder if their coastal city is next. I'd argue an attack via cargo ship would have a bigger economic impact even if it was a smaller yield weapon in a relatively unimportant port city.

apollonights
.
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2017 4:46 pm

Sat Jul 08, 2017 2:07 am

Here is what the National Interest had to say on the matter,
"A nuclear terrorist event would be a global event because we live in a world of unprecedented interconnectedness. Let’s consider three possible immediate global effects.

The first is the disruption of supply chains. Companies and production lines throughout the world rely on an extended international network of suppliers and transnational shipping routes. Ordering “just enough” and “just in time” means that a short interruption in supply or shipping in one country would send shock waves to many other countries around the world. The RAND Corporation once studied a simulated nuclear attack in the port of Long Beach. They concluded that it is very likely that all U.S. ports would shut down for extended periods with severe repercussions for global trade.

The second is chaos in the global financial markets. Should a nuclear event happen in a major financial hub and obliterate foreign exchange institutions, all major banks worldwide would be instantaneously affected. The average daily volume of foreign-exchange market turnover is close to $5 trillion.

The third is the effect on individual industries. As a former U.S. customs and border official once warned, if a sea container is used to transport a nuclear device that was later detonated, one can be sure that shipping of sea containers would cease, costing countries billions of dollars. Not to mention that the global nuclear industry would take a direct hit, much worse than after Fukushima." [1]

References:
[1]http://nationalinterest.org/feature/don ... rism-15598

Librarylady
.
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 4:22 pm
Location: NYC

Sat Jul 08, 2017 2:24 am

The thing is, Do we really think that North Korea is just going to launch ONE nuclear missile and then wait and see what we do? I'd assume that they'd hit us with everything they had, while simultaneously using their shorter range missiles against Japan and their artillery against South Korea. Because at that point they will have nothing further left to lose. We can only kill them once. They might as well take the world with them. Hell, they could even lob a few missiles towards China, too. Kim wouldn't plan to survive the war -- just to live long enough to see that he'd brought the rest of the world down in flames, too. He doesn't have any children yet to leave his kingdom to, does he? That gives him less incentive to preserve the status quo.

apollonights
.
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2017 4:46 pm

Sat Jul 08, 2017 2:32 am

Librarylady wrote:
Sat Jul 08, 2017 2:24 am
The thing is, Do we really think that North Korea is just going to launch ONE nuclear missile and then wait and see what we do? I'd assume that they'd hit us with everything they had, while simultaneously using their shorter range missiles against Japan and their artillery against South Korea. Because at that point they will have nothing further left to lose. We can only kill them once. They might as well take the world with them. Hell, they could even lob a few missiles towards China, too. Kim wouldn't plan to survive the war -- just to live long enough to see that he'd brought the rest of the world down in flames, too. He doesn't have any children yet to leave his kingdom to, does he? That gives him less incentive to preserve the status quo.
He has a daughter and maybe a son. I agree if North Korea strikes they would swarm with all their ICBM. My real question is this:

What is the chance the North could position a Q-Ship off the coast of the United States? I know their ships aren't welcome in ports. I also read that back in 2003 SecDef Rumsfeld said we had a hard time keeping track of their fleet, especially because they use false flags. While the U.S. has missile defenses for ICBM I have found no known defense against a SCUD or weather balloon off the coast.

eji
.
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 11:14 pm

Sat Jul 08, 2017 3:10 am

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/20 ... 00315.html
U.S. sends 2 B-1B bombers to S. Korea in warning against North's missile test

The U.S. bombers apparently entered from the East Sea and flew northward near the Military Demarcation Line (MDL) in a show of force against the North.

Locked