• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

North Korea Bests Rocket Engine, Possibly for ICBM - US officials

S

sanman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 22, 2015
Messages
17,399
Reaction score
7,263
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
North Korea has tested what appears to be the booster engine for an ICBM:

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/23/north-korea-tests-rocket-engine-possibly-for-icbm-us-officials.html




Look - this is getting really dire, here - if they get nuclear-tipped ICBMs, they'll be able to hold a nuclear knife to everyone's throats. Apparently China doesn't seem to give a damn, because they're counting on their client to stay in line towards them - which is a stupid bet - but that plan throws America under a bus.

These nuts clearly aren't backing off or standing down - they're going for broke - the bottom line is that there's going to have to be a war here.

What treaties get broken if the US uses tactical nukes on them?
 
Assuming everything went perfectly for NK and they got this thing working as intended, would it even cross half the pacific before we shot it down?

Is there something wrong with me that I can't seem to take NK seriously as an international threat?


Anonymous source, fight over healthcare in full swing.........distraction tactics?
 

It's just a matter of time. And shooting down is iffy.
 
Perhaps we should consider that, we know the stages that development needs to go through to build
a functional ICBM.
By us strategically guessing the stage, based on limited intel, dear leader Kim, might off some of his better Scientist,
to close a non existent leak!
 

They probably won't be able to hit the US directly, but possibly South Korea.
 
TheGoverness said:
They probably won't be able to hit the US directly, but possibly South Korea.
Click to expand...

They may not hit the mainland, but there are numerous American bases that would be within range of an ICBM. If they couldn't hit the mainland; they may be able to hit Hawaii. an ICBM tipped with a nuclear warhead makes NK a legitimate threat to much of the world. Mutually assured destruction should keep them from pulling the trigger, but the threat that they are unstable enough to fire the rocket will be enough for them to go to the negotiating table about sanctions. More power to an unstable government with a more unstable leader is never a good idea.
 

The ultimate goal of NK leadership is to remain NK leadership

Having a nuclear weapon helps ensure that as the cost of invading or destabilizing NK means that the weapon either falls into criminal hands for sale on the black market, or NK uses it as a last ditch effort to remain in power or to cause a Pyrrhic victory on the invades out of spite. NK will not use the weapon just out of blue as that would end their leadership and their lives to boot.

As such the actual threat from a NK nuclear missile is no higher than the US, USSR, India, Pakistan etc

They may be Megalomaniacal leaders but they want to remain megalomaniacal leaders, not dead leaders
 

Were it so simple! But funny thing is that many think it is.
 

The problem is, if I recall, that ICBMs enter sub orbital space and can therefore fly pretty far reentering at high speed at a steep angle. Hard to hit with anti rocket rockets.
Worse still, the less sophisticated missiles are not very precise and only good to use on big targets more like LA than a military base.
 
TheGoverness said:
They probably won't be able to hit the US directly, but possibly South Korea.
Click to expand...

An ICBM would probably be able to reach mid Pacific or the West coast. But it would be difficult to aim well with and they would probably be forced to target large assets like Los Angeles or Seattle.

But you are right that hitting Seul would be their first reaction to attack. That is why an allied incursion would have to be extremely brutal and destructive.
 
joG said:
Were it so simple! But funny thing is that many think it is.
Click to expand...

He does not seem suicidal does he?

Any nuke launch will result in his death. I am sure he knows that or at least his generals do
 

If you have reasons to be that confident of this country's ability to intercept ICBM's reliably, I don't know what they are.
 
I see that the Reagan has left two destroyers in its group near Korea and called with the other two at Singapore. I think it will go back to the waters near Korea before long. And even with the loss of the Fitzgerald, three more destroyers in the squadron assigned to the Reagan remain in Japan.

The Vinson group, which apparently is still near Korea, has only two destroyers and a cruiser. It deployed in January, and it is about ready to go home. It will probably be replaced by the Nimitz, which left the West Coast June 4 with four destroyers and one cruiser and is probably near Korea by now. The former ballistic missile submarine Michigan, which can carry 154 cruise missiles as well as quite a few special forces, called at a South Korean port a couple months ago and probably is still in the area.

Assuming that the Reagan and Nimitz strike groups included a total of eight destroyers and two cruisers, these ships would have just over 1,000 missile cells on board. Many of these are certainly loaded with antiaircraft missiles. But if the same proportion were loaded with cruise missiles as was the case with the two destroyers that launched the attack on the Syrian airbase--30-plus percent--the two carrier strike groups would be carrying more than 300 of these. If the Michigan is fully loaded with them--and it's hard to imagine why it would have been sent there if it were not--that would bring the total number within range of North Korea to more than 450. Each cruise missile carries a bomb of about 1,000 lbs.

That, combined with the standing threat posed by B-2 bombers based in the U.S., is enough to present North Korea's military leaders with the threat of a surprise attack to destroy the nation's air defenses and ballistic missile facilities. Tomahawks are very hard to detect and are effective against airfields and surface-to-air missile sites. And such a large naval force also presents them with the threat of a blockade. It's worth noting, too, that several of the destroyers involved are equipped with radars and missiles designed to shoot down short-to-medium range ballistic missiles. These movements of U.S. forces are much more than a gesture.
 
Last edited:
Lord Tammerlain said:
He does not seem suicidal does he?

Any nuke launch will result in his death. I am sure he knows that or at least his generals do
Click to expand...

A rationally planned first strike is and always has been one of the more improbable causes of nuclear war.
 

joG said:
Were it so simple! But funny thing is that many think it is.
Click to expand...

His post is perfectly accurate.

The same thing was true of Saddam, which is why I always thought the war hopelessly stupid even if he really did have a WMD. These kind of leaders know that if they actually ever did use such a weapon against us, they would be annihilated before they finished their first celebratory champagne.
 

Not necessarily. People who surround themselves with cronies rarely have an accurate view of reality.
 
joG said:
A rationally planned first strike is and always has been one of the more improbable causes of nuclear war.
Click to expand...

For that to be a rationally planned action NK would require the ability to ensure 90% of the US military structure would be eliminated, or it would see its destruction.

The more likely reasons for NK seeking nukes are

Prestige only a few countries have them, it would place NK in an "elite" group

Protection, having nukes means that invading/attacking NK could result in NK using them if it felt it would be destroyed otherwise. South Korea in such cases would not let its soil be used to launch attacks against NK. Of course SK would likely seek to build its own in such a case.

The fear that NK if it gets ICBM armed with Nukes is all of a sudden going to attack the US is irrational. It would only do so as a last resort or in retaliation not as a unprovoked first strike
 

I'm not going to lecture. It's too hot. But you might want to check out some analysis of way nuclear wars develop.
 

Nobody said that an "all of a sudden" attack was the main danger.
 
joG said:
I'm not going to lecture. It's too hot. But you might want to check out some analysis of way nuclear wars develop.
Click to expand...

But not too hot for you to stink up the thread with useless snotty posts?
 
Mr Person said:
But not too hot for you to stink up the thread with useless snotty posts?
Click to expand...

Not at all useless, if you actually follow the hint. I remember articles in Foreign Affairs and in The Economist, I believe and probably in Foreign Policy.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Not necessarily. People who surround themselves with cronies rarely have an accurate view of reality.
Click to expand...

The various Kims went to great lengths to keep an iron grip on power. They did it by carefully manipulating all aspects of Korean life, and I'd say that doing that requires the manipulator to have an accurate view of how things stand - their whole game is making sure the people below them don't. I really don't see them firing off nukes willy-nilly simply because they develop ICBM technology.
 

Somebody whose grown up being told that they are pratically a diety--- and being treated that way by everyone around them-- is likely to fall into the same trap.
 

I think your remarks show a very Hollywood-esque understanding of technology.

There is no way to reliably shoot down an ICBM - tests so far have had mixed results.

Do you remember the much-touted Patriot Missile during the Gulf War? Raytheon's missile actually had a very high rate of failure.


It would be relatively easy for the Norks to introduce some modification that would allow their missiles to evade interception, when the US has no mature interception capability. It's all just experimental.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…