Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: How fast can the US level North Korea in a pre-emptive strike?
Necromancer    5/28/2009 10:39:39 PM
Clearly they are playing hardball? and nobdy aims a missile on my favorite golf course.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
WarNerd       5/29/2009 7:27:20 AM
Necromancer, you have to write clearer, more complete, questions.
 
For openers:
What do you mean by 'level'? 
What targets need to be hit and how thoughly destroyed to achieve the desired effect? 
Is this to be a conventional or nuclear first strike?
 
Quote    Reply

Duubz       5/29/2009 9:31:24 AM

Necromancer, you have to write clearer, more complete, questions.

 

For openers:


What do you mean by 'level'? 

What targets need to be hit and how thoughly destroyed to achieve the desired effect? 

Is this to be a conventional or nuclear first strike?




I assume he means what sort of preemptive strike would be required to eliminate North Koreas ability to attack South Korea in retalliation.
 
We all know North Korea isn't going to launching any succesful land invasion of South Korea but they are cabable of inflicting serious damage to Seoul using their long range artillery e.t.c. so the question should be - Is the U.S and South Korea able to remove North Koreas ability to launch masses of artillery strikes on Seoul before Seoul is flattened?
 
Quote    Reply

Duubz       5/29/2009 9:42:02 AM

Necromancer, you have to write clearer, more complete, questions.

 

For openers:


What do you mean by 'level'? 

What targets need to be hit and how thoughly destroyed to achieve the desired effect? 

Is this to be a conventional or nuclear first strike?




I assume he means what sort of preemptive strike would be required to eliminate North Koreas ability to attack South Korea in retalliation.
 
We all know North Korea isn't going to launching any succesful land invasion of South Korea but they are cabable of inflicting serious damage to Seoul using their long range artillery e.t.c. so the question should be - Is the U.S and South Korea able to remove North Koreas ability to launch masses of artillery strikes on Seoul before Seoul is flattened?
 
Quote    Reply

Nanheyangrouchuan       5/29/2009 11:36:53 AM
I wonder how easy it would be to sell the Chinese on the US Navy putting a few ground penetrating nukes on those artillery sites?  Holding Seoul hostage and the refugee problem are the only things keeping anyone from taking any concrete action against this horrible little troll and his midget generals.
 
Quote    Reply

Necromancer       5/29/2009 1:52:17 PM
level = flatten
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       5/30/2009 9:49:11 AM

I wonder how easy it would be to sell the Chinese on the US Navy putting a few ground penetrating nukes on those artillery sites?  Holding Seoul hostage and the refugee problem are the only things keeping anyone from taking any concrete action against this horrible little troll and his midget generals.

I would be more concerned about the South Korean response.  Unless the ground penetrating nukes are all complete camouflets their capital, Seoul, will be heavily contaminated by fallout.  They would probably prefer to just accept the NK bombardment and rebuild the city, and it most likely would be cheaper, in money and lives, as well.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       5/30/2009 6:57:58 PM

I assume he means what sort of preemptive strike would be required to eliminate North Koreas ability to attack South Korea in retaliation.

We all know North Korea isn't going to launching any successful land invasion of South Korea but they are capable of inflicting serious damage to Seoul using their long range artillery e.t.c. so the question should be - Is the U.S and South Korea able to remove North Koreas ability to launch masses of artillery strikes on Seoul before Seoul is flattened?


Depends on how much of the North Korean artillery is actually there and operational and not just decoys / propaganda / hype / exaggerated rumors. 
 
If the artillery guns are as deeply bunkered as rumored then only a deep penetrating bunker buster bomb will be able to take one out, IF we know where they are located underground.  Fortunately, if they are buried that deep, each will only be able to hit a small number of targets.
 
The multiple rocket launchers would have to be located in surface bunkers due to backblast and fumes and should be much more vulnerable, if their locations are known.  The MRL's would probably be the primary user of chemical, biological, and incendiary munitions, so their destruction would be a priority.
 
A real question is how many of these weapons are still operational.  Most are likely to be Soviet WWII surplus, and all are probably a minimum of 30 years old.  While protected from the worst of the elements they are kept ready for use, not mothballed for storage, and have not been test fired since their installation to avoid detection.  It is also likely that the majority of the ammunition is of a similar age.
 
So, there is the target set.  Given the number of aircraft available, each will have to make multiple sorties to service all possible targets, IF we have enough of the required munitions, which seems unlikely for the deeply buried guns.  So we cannot keep Seoul from being damaged.  But Seoul will not be 'flattened', if only because it has grown so much that only NK missiles and aircraft can reach the southern edge.
 
Quote    Reply

Beazz    If this report is true..does it up the anty?   5/30/2009 11:21:55 PM

http://turnerradionetwork.blogspot.com/2009/05/north-korea-puts-warhead-on-ship.html

Saturday, May 30, 2009

NORTH KOREA PUTS WARHEAD ON SHIP!

******* BULLETIN *******


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_uIpart1IM-0/SiFypL8jaKI/AAAAAAAAAXE/oJdnHELPDJA/s320/Northkorea.gif" />Washington, DC (TRN) -- The U.S. National Reconnaissance Office which manages United States military spy satellites, issued an alert this morning regarding North Korea.

According to the alert, which was seen by the Turner Radio Network, U.S. spy satellites code named "Misty-2" and "Lacrosse -4" detected a "diffuse energy signature" emanating from an ocean shipping container loaded onto an ocean container ship at the port of Chiongjin in northeastern North Korea.

The energy signature is one that could be expected if a nuclear bomb was inside the shipping container.

That ship has set sail into the Sea of Japan.

The vessel is now under constant satellite surveillance and the U.S. Navy is deciding what to do about it. A military officer with knowledge of the situation told TRN:
"The ship has to be stopped and inspected but we can't send any ships to put a shot across her bow, order it to heave-to and prepare to be boarded. If it is a bomb, the North Korean ship Captain may have orders to detonate it if confronted at sea. That would kill any ship trying to board her.

We can't send in attack aircraft to sink the ship without verifying what's in the shipping container.


A submarine could safely torpedo the ship to sink it before the crew could detonate a bomb - if it's a bomb -- but since North Korean nuclear technology is very unstable a torpedo might cause the bomb to detonate anyway. The sub would survive, but the radiation released by an accidental detonation will cause problems.

Even in the best case scenario, if it is a bomb and the ship is sunk without a bomb detonation, there's the whole issue of having a nuclear bomb at the bottom of the Sea of Japan. The environmental damage could be catastrophic, poisoning the ocean and killing sea life for thousands of square miles.

This is an unimaginable act by North Korea and is going to end badly for everyone.
"
At present, the ship is heading out into the Sea of Japan. Its destination is unknown. If it is heading toward Japan, it can be within range of a major Japanese City within 2 days. If it is not heading out to Japan, it can reach the U.S. west coast in about 14 days.

More details as they become available. Check back
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Which Turner?   5/31/2009 11:55:09 PM
Is this from a CNN related Ted Turner source or the white supremacist Hal Turner?
 
Quote    Reply

sinoflex       6/1/2009 12:49:26 AM

Is this from a CNN related Ted Turner source or the white supremacist Hal Turner?
The Supreme Hal Turner.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics