North Korea about to launch ICBM test and/or space satellite

[Gokul43201]

How much damage, realistically, could DPRK inflict before its artillery units were neutralized by air strikes?

From what I've heard from Korean friends, DPRK can essentially raze Seoul before it is stopped.

Seoul is less than 50 miles from the DMZ. An Artillery shell will get there in under 2 minutes. A No-dong in less than a minute.

 

[russ_watters]

So what word would you use instead of preemptive?

Defense.

The point of that part of my post was to explain that the line between preemption of an imminent attack and defending against an in progress attack is somewhat vague. Hurkyl was arguing that we were already on the "defense" side of the line and I was explaining why he might think that. I tend to think "preemptive" applies until the missile leaves the launch pad (ie, as long as the attack is reversable), but I can see the functional problem with that: knowing that defense against an in-flight ballistic missile is still a dicey proposition means that if you have good intel that it carries a warhead, then you should destroy it on the ground. The "cat and mouse" game I referred to was taking provokative but still reversable actions that might provoke a defensive response due to the inability to respond defensively after the point of no return has been passed. It is a dangerous poker game that during the cold war occasionally resulted in shot-down aircraft due to the risk that they might release a weapon.

Hurkyl, are you worried about the moral/political implications of "preemtive"? Typically, the international community views preemptive war favorably if the "imminent" part of imminent threat can be shown to a reasonable certainty. I'd even say that the utility (if not complete acceptance) of preventative war has been borne out: Israel took a little heat over the Osirak attack, but not much and nothing came of it. One must conclude the attack to be an unqualified success.

What Ivan and many others suggested, was destroying it on the ground.

Suggested we consider, yes. That's prudence.

I think that requires offensive systems.

Well I would say an offensive attack uses offensive weapons, a defensive attack uses defensive weapons, and a preemptive attack uses preemptive weapons. And often, those are the same weapons.

What I would like to know is, what motive would Kim have to send one (1) missile to another country?

Though I argued for the possibility that he is completely sane and just screwing with us, many movers and shakers in the world community seriously consider the possibility that he really is insane. If he really is an insane megalomaniac, then megalomania alone is enough of a reason to send a single nuke to Tokyo.

 

[russ_watters]

SecDef agrees with you, he's growing theater ABM a bit, not strategic.

I guess where we differ then is that it seems to me that the ABL is both - and perhaps a better performing than THAAD due to the fact that it is moving (reducing atmospheric heating/blooming).

One of the criticisms of the ABL was operational cost (perhaps $100k an hour), but I don't know that I agree that that is an issue. The 1991 Iraq war lasted 864 hours, so having one in the air all the time would cost $86 million. The war cost $61 billion, so that's about .1% of the cost of the war. To me, that seems reasonable if it did a good job.

The SM-3 is both also...

 

[Hurkyl]

Hurkyl, are you worried about the moral/political implications of "preemtive"?

No, just the connotative, since "preemptive" tends to imply that you are taking action before a predicted threat appears, and this is to be contrasted with taking action in response to a threat after it has appeared.

 

[misgfool]

The point of that part of my post was to explain that the line between preemption of an imminent attack and defending against an in progress attack is somewhat vague.

Yes yes, and every country in the world which has won a war described their actions as defensive. Russ don't try to fool us, we (europeans) have been fighting for thousands of years. We know all excuses in the book. Or at least show some imagination and figure out new ones.

If he really is an insane megalomaniac, then megalomania alone is enough of a reason to send a single nuke to Tokyo.

And you think that, he believes, that there will be no repercussions?

 

[BobG]

Though I argued for the possibility that he is completely sane and just screwing with us, many movers and shakers in the world community seriously consider the possibility that he really is insane. If he really is an insane megalomaniac, then megalomania alone is enough of a reason to send a single nuke to Tokyo.

And you think that, he believes, that there will be no repercussions?

What would be the repercussions?

It wouldn't automatically be nuclear annihilation for North Korea - especially if they have more than one nuke.

"Insane megalomaniac" might be an overstatement, but how willing is Kim Jong-Il to stay barely on this side of irrationality vs stray barely on the other side - i.e. be willing to wager that the rest of the world isn't ready to start tossing nukes back and forth even when they'd win. Being capable of irrationality can be hugely intimidating to other people.

The preferred outcome might be to hold the line at just one nuke being fired. That doesn't mean firing a nuke would bring automatic capitulation by the rest of the world. It just means that the worst outcome of firing one nuke would probably be that the rest of the world would definitely destroy any other missiles on the ground and would probably destroy any nuclear facility in the country, regardless of its purpose.

There's always the chance of truly crippling economic sanctions, but that black spot between South Korea and China in night time satellite photos pretty much illustrate that you can't make North Korea much worse than it already is without causing waves of starving refugees.

And the results might be better than that for North Korea. Probably not, but it's always possible. Kim wouldn't be the first to lose a high stakes poker game with the rest of the world. In fact, as ill advised as the Iraq invasion might have been, proving we could make stupid decisions might give Kim more pause than an image of perfectly rational thought would.

 

[misgfool]

What would be the repercussions?

You tell me.

It wouldn't automatically be nuclear annihilation for North Korea - especially if they have more than one nuke.

So why doesn't he do it even just for the pleasure of doing it?

 

[Hurkyl]

You tell me.

Um, you were the one implying there would be reprecussions.

 

[misgfool]

Um, you were the one implying there would be reprecussions.

I only said that there should be repercussions. Secondly, I was discussing about whether Kim believes in repercussions. However, I don't know whether there will be any repercussions.

 

[Wellesley]

So why doesn't he do it even just for the pleasure of doing it?

North Korea can't hit a target with any accuracy yet . A little old (2/23/09) but still relevant:

The Nodong missile is thought to have a range of around 1,000 km and could potentially carry a nuclear warhead.

But it is not accurate. A March 2006 report by the US Center for Non-proliferation Studies said it had a circular error probable of 2-4 km, meaning that half of the missiles fired would fall outside a circle of that radius.

The Nodong could strike most of Japan but not with any accuracy. If it were fired on a military target, its inaccuracy could lead to high levels of civilian casualties.

The missile was test fired in May 1993.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2564241.stm

The recently fired missile's (Taepodong-2) accuracy is supposedly not much better. Why launch a nuke, if it won't hit the target? Keep in mind if NK has nuclear weapons right now, they won't have more than three or four of them.

 

[misgfool]

The recently fired missile's (Taepodong-2) accuracy is supposedly not much better. Why launch a nuke, if it won't hit the target? Keep in mind if NK has nuclear weapons right now, they won't have more than three or four of them.

Japan is so densely populated that I don't think you have to hit exactly the mark to cause casualties.

 

[Count Iblis]

Yes, but causing casualties won't lead to victory in a war. If you only have a few nukes you better make sure that you use the nukes to take out vital targets.

 

[mheslep]

North Korea can't hit a target with any accuracy yet . A little old (2/23/09) but still relevant:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2564241.stm

The recently fired missile's (Taepodong-2) accuracy is supposedly not much better. Why launch a nuke, if it won't hit the target? Keep in mind if NK has nuclear weapons right now, they won't have more than three or four of them.

Japan is so densely populated that I don't think you have to hit exactly the mark to cause casualties.

Such a missile would not have to cause any casualties at all to greatly disrupt people's lives and livelihood. See, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sderot

 

[misgfool]

Yes, but causing casualties won't lead to victory in a war. If you only have a few nukes you better make sure that you use the nukes to take out vital targets.

Can you imagine any realistic scenario where NK gains military victory?

 

[Hurkyl]

I only said that there should be repercussions. Secondly, I was discussing about whether Kim believes in repercussions. However, I don't know whether there will be any repercussions.

That (I believe) is exactly the point BobG was making by asking you that question.

Can you imagine any realistic scenario where NK gains military victory?

I don't know Japan's actual military capability -- let's assume NK could win a 1v1 fight with a successful first strike. All that you need to throw into the mix is some sort of diplomatic situation that prevents Japan's allies from using their full might, and maybe even with NK enjoying limited support from China and/or Russia. Similar things happened a lot last century...

 

[Count Iblis]

Can you imagine any realistic scenario where NK gains military victory?

If North Korea takes out the oil installations in the Gulf and attacks the US strategic oil reserves, then they win.

 

[misgfool]

If North Korea takes out the oil installations in the Gulf and attacks the US strategic oil reserves, then they win.

Hmm... but can you imagine any realistic scenario?

 

[misgfool]

I don't know Japan's actual military capability -- let's assume NK could win a 1v1 fight with a successful first strike. All that you need to throw into the mix is some sort of diplomatic situation that prevents Japan's allies from using their full might, and maybe even with NK enjoying limited support from China and/or Russia. Similar things happened a lot last century...

I strongly doubt they could support a nuclear strike against civilian population of Japan.

 

[Wellesley]

Japan is so densely populated that I don't think you have to hit exactly the mark to cause casualties.

If North Korea's purpose was to attack Japan with one nuclear tipped missile, I would think they would want to target a large military base like Okinawa. If the missile technology is not advanced enough, and the warhead landed in the Sea of Japan, their only chance would be gone.

I agree that North Korea would never be able to win a war in the long run. But North Korea could cause a lot of damage if they were to launch a nuclear strike.

 

[Count Iblis]

North Korea would simply need to increase the accuracy of their missiles and then target the oil installations in Saudi Arabia, Kuwayt and Iraq and the strategic oil reserves in the US to win a war against the West. And they can do that with only conventional warheads.

If the West runs out of oil, it is defeated. We would then need to sit down with Kim and negotiate an end to attacks on oil intallations.

 

[BobG]

North Korea would simply need to increase the accuracy of their missiles and then target the oil installations in Saudi Arabia, Kuwayt and Iraq and the strategic oil reserves in the US to win a war against the West. And they can do that with only conventional warheads.

If the West runs out of oil, it is defeated. We would then need to sit down with Kim and negotiate an end to attacks on oil intallations.

They'd have to increase their range and altitude, as well. Saudi Arabia is about 4600 miles away, meaning their missile would have to reach an altitude of around 920 miles. Re-entry into the atmosphere will hurt their accuracy.

Edit: It wouldn't be that much harder for them to hit Los Angeles. (6000 mile range, 825 mile altitude).

I don't think that's feasible any time soon.

 

[russ_watters]

Hmm... but can you imagine any realistic scenario?

Since when has that stopped an insane megalomaniac?

 

[russ_watters]

Yes yes, and every country in the world which has won a war described their actions as defensive. Russ don't try to fool us, we (europeans) have been fighting for thousands of years. We know all excuses in the book. Or at least show some imagination and figure out new ones.

misgfool, I'm not trying to fool anyone, I'm not making judgements, I'm just explaining issues and logic. We have hindsight and distance, so we don't have to listen to what the starters of wars said, we can make our own judgements and look at how experts judge. And the fact of the matter is that history and political scientists, diplomats sitting around the UN assembly, etc draw the lines that I described and the majority draw the moral conclusions I draw. I'm not making this stuff up. The concept and philosophical exporation of Just War is thousands of years old and is in practice today. You may want to read up on the concept before dismissing it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war

In any case, the issue I as discussing was a very specific one and doesn't have anything to do with who started what war and what they used as an excuse, I am merely explaining the reasoning actually used to take action in cases like the one in question. I didn't say in that quote whether the reaoning is right or wrong (that's part of Just War, but I wasn't discussing it specifically), I was just explaining what the reasoning is.

I've also cited general examples that really happened, but maybe you haven't heard of them. In 1981, for example, the cat-and-mouse game resulted in the shootdown of two Libyan fighters by the US Navy. Now whether the US was right or wrong is not what I'm addressing. I'm simply stating the reason that they were shot down. They were shot down because they passed the point where our defenses could easily repel an attack if one of them actually released a weapon. They had not passed the point of no return (release of a weapon without callback). The decision was made that rather than let them get to where they could launch an attack, they should be stopped before they got there. The space between those lines is where the grey area I described resides. That grey area causes a lot of controversy.

And you think that, he believes, that there will be no repercussions?

Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. If he's insane, that means his judgement is flawd. See Hussein, 1990, for a similar example of a disastrous miscalculation by an unstable megalomaniac dictator.

So why doesn't he do it even just for the pleasure of doing it?

Besides what was already said (not much pleasure if it doesn't hit its target), the incentive goes up with the despiration. He tends to ratchet up the rhetoric at times when he is the most desperate - back him into a corner he believe he has no chance to get out of and he may just choose to go out with a bang.

 

[russ_watters]

"Insane megalomaniac" might be an overstatement...

Yes, it is an overstatement, and I'm not saying he is, I'm just saying we have to consider that he might be - just like I said we also have to consider that he is completely rational and is playing us.

...but how willing is Kim Jong-Il to stay barely on this side of irrationality vs stray barely on the other side - i.e. be willing to wager that the rest of the world isn't ready to start tossing nukes back and forth even when they'd win. Being capable of irrationality can be hugely intimidating to other people.

Right, we are in a transitional phase in world diplomacy here, mixing cold war and post cold war logic. Reagan really did scare the Ruskies. They believed he might be willing to launch 10,000 nukes at them if they annoyed him enough. Scaring people is a good way to get them to negotiate with you.

But post-cold war, the other side of a single-nuke threat (us), doesn't need to and likely wouldn't choose a full nuclear spread as a response. It is no longer morally acceptable. We'd probably send every conventional resource we have at him and take him out the way we did Hussein, but we almost certainly wouldn't nuke his cities. We don't have anything against the Koreans, just their leader.

And the results might be better than that for North Korea. Probably not, but it's always possible. Kim wouldn't be the first to lose a high stakes poker game with the rest of the world. In fact, as ill advised as the Iraq invasion might have been, proving we could make stupid decisions might give Kim more pause than an image of perfectly rational thought would.

Agreed. In essense, Bush was a bad poker player who convinced himself that Hussein still had WMDs. Hussein apparently wasn't bluffing, but in this game, that doesn't always result in a win. Kim didn't scare Bush, so Bush didn't negotiate with him. And Kim must have realized that if Bush detected a serious threat (even one that existed only in his own head), he wouldn't hesitate to act. And that can give even an insane megalomaniac pause.

Now we have an extreme pacifist in the Oval Office, though, and this may have been timed as a test. Whereas Kim may have believed he shouldn't push Bush too far, he may already be stretching his (admittedly short) legs with Obama.

 

[mheslep]

Yes yes, and every country in the world which has won a war described their actions as defensive...

The history of war is overwhelmingly the opposite: most of it has been point blank offensive threats of annihilation demanding tribute and submission from less powerful peoples. The defensive war, just or otherwise, is in the minority.