dfwjim1
Topic Author
Posts: 1533
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 8:46 pm

North Korea and nukes

Tue Mar 14, 2017 6:21 pm

It seems like everyday the leader of North Korea is making threats to use his nuclear weapons against the United States and/or its allies so I am curious if the threats have become such that the United States has targeted a portion of their nuclear triad at North Korea in case they are crazy enough to use their nukes. Or is targeting nuclear weapons such that they can be changed quickly and at a moment's notice?

Thanks for your responses.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24251
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: North Korea and nukes

Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:06 pm

The US strategic arsenal of ICBM and SLBMs are currently targeted at the Arctic Ocean, I believe. Same with the Russian ICBM and SLBM force, to my knowledge. I am not sure if this is by treaty or mutual agreement. The weapons can be very quickly re-targeted so it's a symbolic gesture. I am sure OPLAN 8010 (the general plan for a nuclear engagement) includes North Korean assets.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 24182
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: North Korea and nukes

Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:20 pm

United States has targeted a portion of their nuclear triad at North Korea


If the US returns nuclear fire, it could trigger another world war.

If North Korea launches a nuclear missile, the US should be able to detect it with the Sea-based X-band Radar and eliminate the missile before it reaches the United States. Then, the NATO and China together should decide what to the with North Korea.

Just nuking each other would not be a smart move.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 5045
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: North Korea and nukes

Fri Mar 24, 2017 4:01 am

Stitch wrote:
The US strategic arsenal of ICBM and SLBMs are currently targeted at the Arctic Ocean, I believe. Same with the Russian ICBM and SLBM force, to my knowledge. I am not sure if this is by treaty or mutual agreement. The weapons can be very quickly re-targeted so it's a symbolic gesture. I am sure OPLAN 8010 (the general plan for a nuclear engagement) includes North Korean assets.

Why the Arctic? Why not into outer space?
Eat 'em up Kats!
 
mxaxai
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: North Korea and nukes

Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:44 am

TWA772LR wrote:
Stitch wrote:
The US strategic arsenal of ICBM and SLBMs are currently targeted at the Arctic Ocean, I believe. Same with the Russian ICBM and SLBM force, to my knowledge. I am not sure if this is by treaty or mutual agreement. The weapons can be very quickly re-targeted so it's a symbolic gesture. I am sure OPLAN 8010 (the general plan for a nuclear engagement) includes North Korean assets.

Why the Arctic? Why not into outer space?


Presumably because
(a) the rockets are not able to even enter a stable orbit, let alone leave earth and
(b) a detonation high in the atmosphere or just outside of it, up to the van-Allen belt, can cause strong EMP's with potentially much higher damage. Nobody lives in the arctic and the released radiation would still be manageable should someone accidentally pull the trigger on a nuke. Plus you would not cross hostile countries.
 
johns624
Posts: 1494
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: North Korea and nukes

Fri Mar 24, 2017 3:17 pm

Many of the USN Burke-class destroyers, as well as several Japanese ships, all have BMD capabilities with the Aegis system.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 702
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: North Korea and nukes

Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:00 pm

johns624 wrote:
Many of the USN Burke-class destroyers, as well as several Japanese ships, all have BMD capabilities with the Aegis system.


Yes, but intercepting a missile still means being close enough to the flight path to reach it, and while testing has been going respectably well with the SM3, a hit is not guaranteed.

The planning for a hypothetical North Korean launch is guaranteed to be more complicated than "shoot it down."

The default response is also not necessarily nuclear. The "launch on warning" policy changed under Clinton, to one of assuming the triad remains viable after an initial attack, especially a limited one. From there, the options include a conventional response or a proportionate response.

Although I don't think a proportionate response is the best option for dealing with a North Korean attack, I also don't think China is anywhere near dumb enough to start a war (or rather join the one the initial attacker started) in response to such action. That would be effectively condoning the attack.

China may see upsides to a troublesome North Korea being a buffer and distraction in the region, but I can't think what upside they would find in expending their own soldiers lives defending a North Korean nuclear massacre.
 
User avatar
Channex757
Posts: 1202
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:07 am

Re: North Korea and nukes

Wed Mar 29, 2017 5:51 am

The policy on targeting was changed by both sides not that long after the Soviet Union ceased to exist. It's actually more symbolic than anything as nuclear weapons can be retargeted within seconds. The old hardware targeting systems no longer exist and the various delivery systems use digital-type guidance that just needs coordinates to be entered into their guidance systems.

It's a much more flexible system that can be used against emerging threats rather than just fixed targeting of assets on the "other side".

Having a default setting of the Antarctic means that should a fault launch happen then there is a less important target selected than some city of millions. ICBMs are ballistic weapons and can't steer or retarget themselves, they just fly a path set by their guidance, so can't enter an orbit or swing away once the propellant is used.

Cruise-type missiles are even more advanced as they can use multiple systems to calculate tracks and guide their flight but again they won't have hard targets locked into their memory. It's as 'simple' as uploading a fresh file then launching at the chosen target if in range.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 8954
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: North Korea and nukes

Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:37 am

ICBMs are ballistic because of a treaty signed by the US and Russia. Otherwise by now all warheads would be of the orbital type with the ability to be redirected in flight.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4498
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: North Korea and nukes

Wed Mar 29, 2017 10:15 am

Aesma wrote:
ICBMs are ballistic because of a treaty signed by the US and Russia. Otherwise by now all warheads would be of the orbital type with the ability to be redirected in flight.


ICBMs are ballistic because thats the quickest delivery option - even with a weapon in the perfect orbit at the right time, it would take more time to deorbit that weapon onto a target than it would take for an ICBM to hit its target.

Add to that the fact that every orbital weapon would be tracked to within an inch of its life, and targeted with anti-satellite weapons at the start of any conflict... ICBMs are just easier and "safer"...
 
mpgunner
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 4:08 pm

Re: North Korea and nukes

Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:19 pm

I think a preemptive, night time, strike of several EMP cruise missiles (like Boeing's Champ") would possibly render NK useless for a while.

The US response could be: "What? Your communications systems are out? What happened? We have know idea what happened".
 
CH47A
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 4:06 pm

Re: North Korea and nukes

Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:01 pm

So far I haven't seen any member of this community in any of the threads I have studied here on this horrid topic make note of what is a much, much bigger concern for the citizens of the ROK, the citizens of Japan, and even some other nations nearby if a launch goes very wrong and a wrong area gets hit -- gas. A toxic gas attack is on everyone's mind, not nukes. You start on this conversation with anyone that lives in either the ROK or Japan, or even some in China, and it is the threat from gas attacks that worry much, much more than any other weapons system.

By the way, the next biggest worry in this part of the world is what will happen to the Internet systems. The DPRK has invested a lot of time and money in training people to cause terrible harm to such systems. And you can guess that some other nations have done the same.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 5994
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: North Korea and nukes

Thu Aug 10, 2017 2:04 pm

mpgunner wrote:
I think a preemptive, night time, strike of several EMP cruise missiles (like Boeing's Champ") would possibly render NK useless for a while.

The US response could be: "What? Your communications systems are out? What happened? We have know idea what happened".


and much of the surrounding area, which would wreck South Korea and be an act of war against any other nation in the footprint.

best regards
Thomas
Times are changing: 70 years ago the USA went to war to defeat the Nazis, now they elect them to run their country.
 
Max Q
Posts: 5897
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: North Korea and nukes

Sun Aug 13, 2017 3:48 am

mpgunner wrote:
I think a preemptive, night time, strike of several EMP cruise missiles (like Boeing's Champ") would possibly render NK useless for a while.

The US response could be: "What? Your communications systems are out? What happened? We have know idea what happened".




You're completely forgetting the thousands of conventional artillery howitzers NK has trained on the south.


They can do an awful lot of damage with these crude, non electronic weapons.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
Flaps
Posts: 1303
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2000 1:11 pm

Re: North Korea and nukes

Mon Aug 14, 2017 2:48 am

No pre-emptive strike. Not necessary and too subject to unpredictable reactions elsewhere. Should North Korea actually attack though I would prefer to see a counter attack so overwhelming (read apocalyptic) that no one would ever dare think to try such a thing again. (hint Iran).
 
WIederling
Posts: 3537
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: North Korea and nukes

Mon Aug 14, 2017 7:48 am

Flaps wrote:
No pre-emptive strike. Not necessary and too subject to unpredictable reactions elsewhere. Should North Korea actually attack though I would prefer to see a counter attack so overwhelming (read apocalyptic) that no one would ever dare think to try such a thing again. (hint Iran).


Pronounced lack of situational understanding.

Ignore the big words from any politician. They invariable are talking to their own constituency.
( This seems to haunt Trump more than anyone else at the moment?)

There are only two nations around that I would deem irresponsible and derided enough
to do a nuclear first strike. ( cue LeMay and doctrine of a successfull and survivable first strike.)

The USA and ( only maybe ) Israel.

For every one else on this globe nukes are "fire insurance".

On the other hand LeMay acolytes seem to have made a comeback on home turf.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 1518
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: North Korea and nukes

Mon Aug 14, 2017 7:38 pm

WIederling wrote:
Flaps wrote:
No pre-emptive strike. Not necessary and too subject to unpredictable reactions elsewhere. Should North Korea actually attack though I would prefer to see a counter attack so overwhelming (read apocalyptic) that no one would ever dare think to try such a thing again. (hint Iran).


Pronounced lack of situational understanding.

Ignore the big words from any politician. They invariable are talking to their own constituency.
( This seems to haunt Trump more than anyone else at the moment?)

There are only two nations around that I would deem irresponsible and derided enough
to do a nuclear first strike. ( cue LeMay and doctrine of a successfull and survivable first strike.)

The USA and ( only maybe ) Israel.

For every one else on this globe nukes are "fire insurance".

On the other hand LeMay acolytes seem to have made a comeback on home turf.


If there's a single nation on earth that needs nuclear weapons as a deterrence, it's Israel. If Iran develops nuclear capabilities, they would use them against Israel. So we can't let this happen. If the US doesn't stop Iran from developing a nuke, Israel will.

In 1995 (I think), Bill Clinton handed the North Koreans 5 billion dollars and two centrifuges. In 2006 they detonated their first nuclear weapon. In 2013 they miniturized their warheads to they could fit on an ICBM, and in 2017 they have ICBMs capable of reaching North America.

In 2016 Barrack Obama handed the Iranians 1.5 billion dollars in cash. The Iranians are present in North Korea at every weapons tests, and they're sharing technology between each other. I would bet Iran has a functioning nuclear weapon in 5 years or less unless something is done to stop them. And I consider the Iranians even more irresponsible than the North Koreans.
 
WIederling
Posts: 3537
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: North Korea and nukes

Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:47 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
If there's a single nation on earth that needs nuclear weapons as a deterrence, it's Israel. If Iran develops nuclear capabilities, they would use them against Israel. So we can't let this happen. If the US doesn't stop Iran from developing a nuke, Israel will.


broken record:
Pronounced lack of situational understanding.
Murphy is an optimist
 
salttee
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: North Korea and nukes

Mon Aug 14, 2017 9:27 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
If there's a single nation on earth that needs nuclear weapons as a deterrence, it's Israel. If Iran develops nuclear capabilities, they would use them against Israel. So we can't let this happen. If the US doesn't stop Iran from developing a nuke, Israel will.

(we can't let this happen) Who is "we". Why should the United States support the ongoing and continuous Zionist expansion into other people's homelands? As has been the case since the 1890s, the (95% European) Zionists can have peace with the people of the region anytime they want to stop their theft of land and territorial expansion.

Anytime.

JetBuddy wrote:
In 1995 (I think), Bill Clinton handed the North Koreans 5 billion dollars and two centrifuges.
Clinton did not hand the North Koreans 5 billion dollars and two centrifuges; what he did do was get the NKs to suspend their nuke bomb program. He even got them to allow regular inspections of their nuke facilities and place cameras on their shuttered plutonium production facility.

JetBuddy wrote:
In 2006 they detonated their first nuclear weapon.
In 2002 our dimwitted president Bush broke off the ongoing negotiations with NK, and publicly insulted them (a preview of Trump world); so in turn they kicked out the inspectors, broke the locks, turned off the cameras and resumed nuke development. Four years later they succeeded in detonating a device.

JetBuddy wrote:
In 2013 they miniturized their warheads to they could fit on an ICBM
Nonsense.

JetBuddy wrote:
In 2016 Barrack Obama handed the Iranians 1.5 billion dollars in cash.
In 2016 Obama got the Iranians to agree to a suspension of their nuke program in return for suspension of economic sanctions and the return of Iranian money that had been impounded. That agreement still holds today.

JetBuddy wrote:
And I consider the Iranians even more irresponsible than the North Koreans.
LOL
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 4499
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: North Korea and nukes

Mon Aug 14, 2017 10:31 pm

Just a dumb question. Until two weeks back intelligence community was saying DPRK was years away from miniaturizing a nuke. WTF happened?
 
salttee
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: North Korea and nukes

Mon Aug 14, 2017 10:44 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Just a dumb question. Until two weeks back intelligence community was saying DPRK was years away from miniaturizing a nuke. WTF happened?

My guess is that there was a politically directed change of that assessment, as opposed to a technical re-assessment.
Pompeo is under Trump's control apparently.

A similar thing happened in 2003 when the CIA was adamant that there were no WMDs in Iraq, until enough arm twisting was done to get them to change their minds. Cheney visited CIA Hq in that lobbying effort - the first time the executive branch had ever gone to Langley.
 
salttee
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: North Korea and nukes

Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:04 pm

salttee wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
Just a dumb question. Until two weeks back intelligence community was saying DPRK was years away from miniaturizing a nuke. WTF happened?

My guess is that there was a politically directed change of that assessment, as opposed to a technical re-assessment.
Pompeo is under Trump's control apparently.

A similar thing happened in 2003 when the CIA was adamant that there were no WMDs in Iraq, until enough arm twisting was done to get them to change their minds. Cheney visited CIA Hq in that lobbying effort - the first time the executive branch had ever gone to Langley.



Edit: It may have been a change in the assessment of whether Iraq was involved in 9-11 or had Al Qaeda ties. It's been a while.
 
WIederling
Posts: 3537
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: North Korea and nukes

Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:45 am

salttee wrote:
In 2016 Obama got the Iranians to agree to a suspension of their nuke program in return for suspension of economic sanctions and the return of Iranian money that had been impounded. That agreement still holds today.


Actually the US immediately worked towards "neutralizing" the agreements by raising roadblocks in other domains
and thus retreating on their commitment while endlessly demanding Iran to unagreed upon further limitations.
( Not clear if this was Obama's doing or pushed by the imbeciles of the GOP. )
Murphy is an optimist

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos