News 'North Korean torpedo' sank South's navy ship - report

[SiberianTiger]

What would prevent that scenario?

A naval blockade, which is about to be imposed.

 

[vonneuman]

A naval blockade, which is about to be imposed.

Yes, because a naval fleet is not at all vulnerable to nukes...

 

[SiberianTiger]

Yes, because a naval fleet is not at all vulnerable to nukes...

It's a navy's job. We were talking about how to protect citizens from a surprise nuclear booby-trapping by NK, not how everybody would stay safe no matter what happens.

 

[Urwumpe]

Exactly. If you are afraid of getting nuked, you should not join any armed forces today.

Also, you will only in port or during replenishment see military ships so close together as in the nuclear test. In reality, you can hardly kill more than three ship in "close" formation with one. Practically even just one, exactly as many as you can kill with a conventional torpedo of modern design. Which is why most armies can happily trade nuclear torpedoes in disarmament treaties for some favors.

 

[vonneuman]

Exactly. Nukes are not that powerful. If you where to detonate an average size nuke at the steps of the Capitol building in Washington DC. It would not even damage the the White House.
Its the radiation that kills people.
http://www.carloslabs.com/projects/200712B/GroundZero.html

 

[Urwumpe]

And radiation kills slowly. Very slowly.

You can run away from it, if you know where it is, you can reduce its impact by iodine pills, and often, it takes just some years until the damage is reduced to undetectable levels.

The white house would likely ignite by the intense radiation of an air-burst fireball, but still, chances are high for many people to survive outside the fireball.

 

[Cairan]

What would be very worrying for S. Korea would be if N. Korea had developed or acquired nuclear artillery shells, like the ones developed by the USA in the 1950s... With all the artillery batteries aimed at Seoul from across the DMZ, if you fire 10000 rounds in an opening salvo, good luck trying to figure out which one is a nuclear warhead.

But given the history of deception and incursions of N. Korea, I agree that it would either be delivered by sea or maybe a commercial airplane, from Air Koryo, if you want an airburst over Seoul, or even Europe as it's Tu-204 "fleet" of 2 aircraft is no longer on Europe's blacklist (the list for safety concerns, maintenance issues, etc.)

One thing for sure: a dying Kim Jung Il will cause lots of instabilities ifor the region, if only by the show of force and strength that competing party members and military leaders will put out to convince all the factions that they are the ones who can keep N Korea in the game...

 

[Urwumpe]

Nuclear artillery has only a few kilotons, bad enough, but rather expensive for leveling a map square - you can buy a ship load of Smerch projectiles for one nuclear projectile.

It has a psychological effect, but is not really doing serious damage in the long run.

The biggest nuclear US artillery shell had just 5 kT, the most common 155mm standard caliber shell even just 72 tons TNT equivalent. The real danger of North Korea will be nuclear ballistic missiles, even a small low-tech one could carry a low-tech nuclear war head to Seoul.

 

[DanScall]

Let's discuss how dangerous those nukes might be. I believe it can be assumed they have less of them than there are fingers on a man's palm. Their magnitude can't exceed some 20 kt, if even they'd work at all in a combat situation. All modern armies are aware of nuclear weapon effects and are not very much vulnerable for nuclear attacks. Ordinary armoured units can provide enough protection for 95% of the personnel at the battlefield.

6 at 10kt's was last I heard. And actually, they're irrelevent in the terms you are talking. The NK's don't have the technology to use them tactically in the manner that the Americans/Russians/Israeli's do, they can only use them strategically on ballistic missiles or, far less likely, on Il-28 bombers.

The only big threat would be them aiming the nuke at some city in the South Korea or Japan (I don't seriously believe in a chance of NK sending an ICBM over to the USA territory). This raises two big questions: what means do they have to deliver a nuclear device off the borders of their territory? How difficult is to detect and counter that?

The US is out of ranger, Japan and SK are not. The North Koreans have a number of different ballistic missiles, all of which are capable of nuclear weapons delivery. Unfortunatly, the fancy anti-ICBM defences of NATO point towards Russia, and wouldn't be able to stop a launch. They can detect it, but won't be able to do much about it. I suppose it's conceivable an SM-2/3 might knock a warhead out, they're really, really good SAM's, but I doubt it.

Thus far, only two experimental underground explosions have been performed. This means, there is a chance of NK having built a device that is suitable for putting on a ballistic rocket, but this chance is slim. For a country that is conducting weapons development on their own, much more tests are required to guarantee having a reliable warhead technology.

Actually I'm pretty sure the CIA decided that they had by now acheived a level of miniturization sufficient to put at least one, and possibly up to three, warheads onto a Taepedong 1/Msuduan missile. Could be wrong though.

In my view, the only chance of the North's nuke to be used is the opening shot of the war, taking by surprise. Or exploding it on their own territory on the ground as an act of desperation after an invasion has begun (but see above about near immunity of an army towards single nuclear explosions).

So is it true to consider it a real stopper?

Opening shot, yes. 'Cause no way they'd be left intact long into a war. But yes, the Taepedong missile is conceivably advanced enough to get a bomb to Seoul. The CIA certainly thinks so, and I suspect that means it's a show stopper. Unless we kick the whole thing off with an attack on their launch sites.

Like people said, the actual blast of a nuclear bomb would take out one ship in a formation. Maybe. To be honest, they'd be foolish to waste it on anything less than a carrier, and I can honestly see an American carrier limping home after a close range nuke, those things were designed for cold war combat, and they're pretty tough. As to radiation, all warships these days can become a closed environment pretty quickly (like, tens of seconds) that can reduce the risk considerably.

What would be very worrying for S. Korea would be if N. Korea had developed or acquired nuclear artillery shells, like the ones developed by the USA in the 1950s... With all the artillery batteries aimed at Seoul from across the DMZ, if you fire 10000 rounds in an opening salvo, good luck trying to figure out which one is a nuclear warhead.

But given the history of deception and incursions of N. Korea, I agree that it would either be delivered by sea or maybe a commercial airplane, from Air Koryo, if you want an airburst over Seoul, or even Europe as it's Tu-204 "fleet" of 2 aircraft is no longer on Europe's blacklist (the list for safety concerns, maintenance issues, etc.)

The miniturization of warheads to artillery shell sizes is far beyond NK's capabilities I believe. The only real threat is a missile to Seoul/Japan.

If there is a war, and again I'm saying I doubt it, I think the likliest way for it to open would be, like, every single B-2 the US owns turning anything that even looks like a missile launch site in North Korea into a brown smear. Because the NK's unfortunatly do have both the capacity and the mindset to lob a bomb or two over the border. The bomb on Hiroshima, which is about the same size as the NK's bombs, killed 30% of the population, 140,000 people. A similar bomb on Seoul would kill 3,000,000 people. Nobody wants to risk that.

 

[Urwumpe]

The threat of a nuclear attack is no show stopper for a serious army. If you would get scared about even a small nuclear arsenal, you are in the wrong business today. You would have to be prepared to attack an opponent with even many nuclear weapons, even if you know that he will use them as terror weapons against civilians.

The faster you strike and work, the lower is the risk and the more the opponent is forced to waste the warheads on badly prepared strikes. You can't permit the opponent time - time allows getting nuclear weapons smuggled outside the country. If you want to deal with nuclear threats, you need to be consequent and deal with the whole package - from production to deployment.

 

[DanScall]

The threat of a nuclear attack is no show stopper for a serious army. If you would get scared about even a small nuclear arsenal, you are in the wrong business today. You would have to be prepared to attack an opponent with even many nuclear weapons, even if you know that he will use them as terror weapons against civilians.

The faster you strike and work, the lower is the risk and the more the opponent is forced to waste the warheads on badly prepared strikes. You can't permit the opponent time - time allows getting nuclear weapons smuggled outside the country. If you want to deal with nuclear threats, you need to be consequent and deal with the whole package - from production to deployment.

Sorry, I don't think I'm being clear. I don't mean it's a show stopper in that the use of a nuclear device would mean the loss of an otherwise conventional war. If war does occur, the North Koreans have lost, whether they use their nukes or not. What I mean is that the political cost of 3 million people (assuming only one bomb gets through) being Nagasaki'd would probably be high enough that neither the South nor the Americans will start a war in retaliation for the sinking. The nukes are "show stopper" in that I believe they have stopped the SK's and the US forces based there from taking military, rather than just economic and political, action as punishment. I imagine if the threat wasn't there, the North would probably wake up tomorrow sans navy.

 

[Urwumpe]

No, I think the Chinese allies in the background work much better as threat, than the potential nuclear weapons of NK. Or the existing chemical or biological weapons of them. Until some years ago, the nuclear program of NK was just a paper tiger. Without NK being wiped away. Without the Chinese being neutral in a future war, this will get really ugly.

 

[Cairan]

That's one area we are all missing here indeed: chemical and biological weapons. I wouldn't bet too much on N Korea having good quality bio weapons, but chemical ones, you bet... So IF and only IF some nuts in there were to consider committing large scale suicide, you would bomb Seoul with chemical warheads with artillery shells, as far as the nuclear weapon issue goes, it was developed mainly for bragging rights and bargaining chips to get resources to keep the regime running from it's neighbors...

That being said, a single, nicely placed low yield device atop a missile detonated in the high atmosphere above S. Korea or Japan would have interesting effects on these high-tech countries...

 

[Bj]

The only big threat would be them aiming the nuke at some city in the South Korea or Japan (I don't seriously believe in a chance of NK sending an ICBM over to the USA territory). This raises two big questions: what means do they have to deliver a nuclear device off the borders of their territory? How difficult is to detect and counter that?

I seem to remember N Korea trying to launch a rocket into space and 'failed.' Whats funny, it landed in the Pacific -means it never even got close to orbit. Possible mechanical failures aside, how can it possibly be passed for a orbital vessel? Perhaps as they say, a long range missile coverup?

 

[SiberianTiger]

I seem to remember N Korea trying to launch a rocket into space and 'failed.' Whats funny, it landed in the Pacific -means it never even got close to orbit. Possible mechanical failures aside, how can it possibly be passed for a orbital vessel? Perhaps as they say, a long range missile coverup?

As independent post mortem has revealed, it actually almost GOT there, but failed 3rd stage of the launcher prevented orbiting.

Latest:

http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest+News/Asia/Story/A1Story20100526-218560.html

SEOUL, KOREA - South Korea's military was tracking four North Korean submarines which disappeared from their east coast base after conducting naval training in the East Sea earlier this week, a military official in Seoul said Wednesday (May 26), according to Yonhap News.


Locations of the North's four 300-tonne-class submarines have remained unknown for two days, the military official said, noting, "We are tracking the four submarines by mobilising all naval capabilities in the East Sea," the report said.


It added that the submarines left the Chaho base located near the Musudan-ri missile launch pad site in North Hamgyong Province in North Korea's northeast coast, according to the official.

 

[Urwumpe]

300 tons is pretty light, even the old German submarines had only 460 tons displacement. And such small submarines can mean a lot of trouble, especially if they are optimized for silence. Not really long ranged then, but impossible to be found without luck.

 

[SiberianTiger]

Lengthy, but interesting:

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20100525/159153976.html

Nobody wants a brawl with Pyongyang

19:52 25/05/2010

The most remarkable thing about the sinking of the South Korean warship Cheonan is that nobody wants to talk about it. Let's look back at the international responses to the catastrophe: South Korean President Lee Myung-bak reported that he would submit the case to the UN Security Council. His American counterpart Barack Obama described this reaction as fully adequate. Others issued statements and condemnations. And that was it, strictly speaking, although 46 sailors died in this disaster.

Everything that is now going on between North and South Korea is anomalous and anachronistic in international politics. That is, all of this should not have happened from the standpoint of logic and pure reason. But it happened anyway, and it turns out that there is no way out of this predicament and no good solution. And so, there will be a series of symbolic gestures, and then the matter will be forgotten.

Impossible? Well, why not? Not so long ago, in 2007, Israel bombed a facility in Syria. People died, although it is not clear how many. Israel still claims that the facility was part of Syria's military nuclear program, whereas Syria maintains it was a regular military base. The IAEA has been carrying out an inquiry for more than two and a half years. Nothing else has been done. It turns out anything is possible.

At first glance, everything seems more clear-cut with the South Korean warship. The international commission collected tangible evidence, including the fragments of a torpedo, and it became abundantly clear that that torpedo was launched from a North Korean submarine. It is also clear why the warship was hit - the two countries do not agree on the location of their maritime border. The South is convinced the warship was in its own waters, while the North is convinced of the opposite. The uproar started after the results of the inquiry were published. And most importantly, who would want to launch torpedoes at South Korean ships if not the North Koreans?

The point is that East Asian countries remember well how such cases play out. Remember, for example, the South Korean passenger Boeing that for some reason deviated from its planned route by 650 kilometers, flew into the Soviet air space and was shot down in 1983. The U.S.S.R. tried to defend itself - it explained that modern aircraft did not make such mistakes, and that the Boeing's flight path had intersected with the American Orion reconnaissance plane, after which it became nearly impossible to tell which plane was which on radar.

It later turned out that the pilots of the South Korean airline regularly collected footage of Soviet territory for the CIA. There was a trial in Seoul that caused a stir on a national scale, but by that time the Soviet Union no longer existed. So, as a result, the airliner story became something similar to the assassination of President Kennedy - everyone understands that the official version somehow does not answer all the questions, and seems a lot like a provocation. But it is impossible to get to the bottom of it all, and nobody really wants to.

In other words, doubts about the conclusions of such commissions will always remain. It is another mater during, for example, a high-stakes game between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S, when it is possible to stage a competent provocation. But what if there are no stakes and the Korean problem has come to a complete standstill? Perhaps this is the beginning of a tougher, less effective policy against the North by the current South Korean president? Seoul has made many mistakes of course, but not to the point of sinking its own vessels.

However, it is hard to imagine who would benefit from such a provocation in this part of the world today. Something similar could have taken place under the previous American administration. In fact, the six-party talks were undertaken by regional powers (China, Russia and South Korea) to prevent the Bush administration from turning the Korean peninsula into a global flashpoint. But now it is clear that Washington has lost its taste for adventure.

Pyongyang is unlikely to admit in the near future that some of its admirals made a mistake. Likewise, it is unlikely to pay any compensation (and money cannot compensate for the loss of human lives). Could the UN Security Council impose sanctions against Pyongyang? Maybe, but what would be the point? Isolating North Korea from the rest of the world makes no sense, if only because it is already isolated. And an invasion of North Korea would result in much heavier casualties than the attack on the Cheonan. Nuclear weapons do not change anything - it would have been the same if North Korea were armed with spears and bows. Perhaps it makes sense to call the government in Pyongyang inadequate? But then it should not have been cornered in the first part of the 2000s.

It was amusing to hear Obama announce his decision to "review" U.S. policy on North Korea. In English, "to review" an issue means to study it again in order to determine whether the policy is correct, in which case it can be left as it is. But in this case, there was almost no policy at all, so there is nothing to review.

In a vast majority of cases - wars, manmade disasters and other incidents - the most sensible thing is to do nothing at all. One of the reasons is that there are no perpetrators - just a big disaster. Those directly involved in these events are aware of this, and simply put on a show for the public that is supposedly always willing to name and punish those responsible, lest another disaster happen again. And so, it seems that under the circumstances the most courageous thing to do is to openly admit that any action is worse than inaction.

MOSCOW (RIA Novosti political correspondent Dmitry Kosyrev)

 

[Urwumpe]

What the writer of the article misses is one tiny aspect: We are not talking about a single act of "state terrorism", but one in a long chain of it.

Something has to happen - even the USSR had been open for hidden diplomatic actions after each conflict that turned out bad. Nobody talked about the deals, but they happened. No such thing with NK. This one has only one tendency - the more you appease it, the worse things get. Even South Koreas Sunshine politics failed on getting NK back onto this planet.

So, if you want to prevent more such incidents, you need to react in a powerful form and by this force North Korea to choose its own fate. Currently we have a cold war there - not more not less, and a bit of Reagan might not be wrong to deal with it.

 

[DanScall]

No, I think the Chinese allies in the background work much better as threat, than the potential nuclear weapons of NK. Or the existing chemical or biological weapons of them. Until some years ago, the nuclear program of NK was just a paper tiger. Without NK being wiped away. Without the Chinese being neutral in a future war, this will get really ugly.

Fair point, I'd call the Chinese far more of a deterrent. Not sure how likely they are to join in though. Last time they had communism in common and the North hadn't been too radical yet, these days they can't ignore the fact that, at the end of the day, the North started this scrap.

What say you all?

 

[vonneuman]

As independent post mortem has revealed, it actually almost GOT there, but failed 3rd stage of the launcher prevented orbiting.

Now that's a country that I don't want having space travel. Not to sound racist or anything, but I like them trapped on that peninsula.