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

[mheslep]

There should be a fallacy for this kind of argumentation. Mr Gingrich only has to provide the evidence, nothing more, nothing less.

I would hazard that Gingrich's point is not in the first instance about NK, but given that we do indeed have evidence of threats from NK, his comments are directed at the rather large pile of rationalizations offered in response to that evidence, such as this:

Additionally there are probably million other unknowns in the world and there is simply not enough resources to deal with every contingency.

 

[Wellesley]

The obvious reason to launch to the East is the Earth's rotation. You really have to want that particular orbit to launch to the West. In practice, the largest inclinations satellites have is about 98.6 degrees (or, as some call it, 81.4 degrees retrograde).

Of course, for the altitude that NK claimed (490 miles or 104 minutes), 98.6 degrees is a very common inclination. That's the altitude and inclination that gives you a sun synchronous orbit.

For a nation's first satellite launch, launching due East at a low altitude of 200 to 300 miles would be a very significant accomplishment. At the lower end of that altitude (and especially anything lower), the satellite's orbit would decay within weeks, but it would still be a major step.

Would it effect the orbit that much if NK launched it slightly in a Northeasterly direction? For example, launching it from the northern border, and overfly the La Perouse Strait? It doesn't matter now, but looking at the map, one can certainly see why Japan was threatened with a rocket overflying their country.
http://geolounge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/300px-sea_of_japan_map.png

Fact is that the president used false intelligence or intelligence falsely to justify a war. I would describe that as a total failure in the intelligence community. And I can't remember the CIA stepping up and saying that the president is intentionally using false intelligence.

What does this have to do with North Korea's 'attempted' launch?

 

[LowlyPion]

I would hazard that Gingrich's point is not in the first instance about NK, but given that we do indeed have evidence of threats from NK, his comments are directed at the rather large pile of rationalizations offered in response to that evidence, such as this:

I think Gingrich is just playing Cheney's unctuous self-serving game of predicting the US now less safe with Obama. Buying a lottery ticket for the future as it were, so he can say I told you so if things go badly with North Korea. Unfortunately I think the cynical model of these people's statements seems to explain them better than their arguments.

 

[BobG]

Would it effect the orbit that much if NK launched it slightly in a Northeasterly direction? For example, launching it from the northern border, and overfly the La Perouse Strait? It doesn't matter now, but looking at the map, one can certainly see why Japan was threatened with a rocket overflying their country.
http://geolounge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/300px-sea_of_japan_map.png

Yes, it would if it was a real satellite launch attempt. The launch azimuth depends on the desired inclination and the latitude:

sin(Az) = \frac{cos(\iota)}{cos(\phi)}

It's slightly more complicated than that, since there's already an eastward velocity equal to the velocity of the launch site due to the Earth's rotation that has to be subtracted out, but the key is that you only have two possible directions to choose from (unless you only care about saving fuel and launch due East).

I kind of doubt it was a real attempt at a functional satellite. One low Earth orbiting communications satellite isn't going to do much good. They would only see the satellite about 4 times a day, for around 12 minutes at a time. It could transmit propoganda, but it couldn't be used effectively for real satellite communications.

From where their launch site is located (on the nipple along the coast), they're going to launch over somebody else's territory no matter which direction they launch. That's a bad idea since even the US, ESA, and Russia have failed launches and nobody likes to be pelted with flaming debris (okay, that rocket barely got off the pad - any debris falling on Japan would be far less spectacular).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62-L-_3tdG8

The melted cars belonged to the people that launched the satellite. Talk about a bad day.

 

[Wellesley]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62-L-_3tdG8

The melted cars belonged to the people that launched the satellite. Talk about a bad day.

Nice video, and thanks for the clarification!

 

[russ_watters]

I think that it is best to stick with the dictionary definitions. Just in case someone would try to redefine words to fit his/her rhetoric.

You misunderstood: I'm not arguing against the dictionary definition (I don't do that - I'm the most pedantic person you've ever met), I was arguing against the word usage.

Yes, it would have been a justified preemptive strike. But having such intelligence is rare in today's world. And no offense, but the reliability of US intelligence has suffered a quite severe dent during this decade.

And that's exactly the point Ivan and several others were making: since you can't know with any kind of certainty that the missile had a satellite on top as claimed, vs a warhead, prudence demands deploying defensive systems to engage it (which we surely did) and if necessary, shoot it down.

 

[russ_watters]

Well the sea launched RIM can hide launch capability and event, if not flight.

I don't see your point or perhaps that just doesn't make sesnse: the flight is a demonstration of the capability.

Press widely reports Gates is about the kill, or at least seriously cut, the airborne laser unfortunately.

That would be very disappointing considering it is about ready for it's first full operational test and fills a clear need in even a conventional anti-missile defense. Like I said, it can take out scuds, but I can imagine it taking out rockets launched by terrorists toward a neighboring country or even surface to air missiles aimed at our airplanes in a battle zone.

The strategic ABM defense is on shaky theoretical ground, but there is a clear need for a tactical ABM defense.

Thanks for pointing that out, though, I hadn't heard of its impending demise (heads to google...).

 

[misgfool]

You misunderstood: I'm not arguing against the dictionary definition (I don't do that - I'm the most pedantic person you've ever met), I was arguing against the word usage.

So what word would you use instead of preemptive?

And that's exactly the point Ivan and several others were making: since you can't know with any kind of certainty that the missile had a satellite on top as claimed, vs a warhead, prudence demands deploying defensive systems to engage it (which we surely did) and if necessary, shoot it down.

What Ivan and many others suggested, was destroying it on the ground. I think that requires offensive systems. What I would like to know is, what motive would Kim have to send one (1) missile to another country?

 

[mheslep]

That would be very disappointing considering it is about ready for it's first full operational test and fills a clear need in even a conventional anti-missile defense. Like I said, it can take out scuds, but I can imagine it taking out rockets launched by terrorists toward a neighboring country or even surface to air missiles aimed at our airplanes in a battle zone.

Yes Gates killed it yesterday, at least no more expansion.

We will cancel the second Airborne Laser Prototype Aircraft. We'll keep the existing aircraft and shift the program to an R&D effort. The ABL program has significant affordability and technology problems, and the program's proposed operational role is highly questionable. We will terminate the Multiple Kill Vehicle program because of its significant technical challenges and the need to take a fresh look at the requirement.

The strategic ABM defense is on shaky theoretical ground, but there is a clear need for a tactical ABM defense.

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

...Fourth, to better protect our forces and those of our allies in theater from ballistic missile attack, we will add $700 million to field more of our most capable theater missile defense systems; specifically, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, THAAD, and the Standard Missile 3 programs.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4396

 

[mheslep]

...Unfortunately I think the cynical model of these people's statements seems to explain them better than their arguments.

That's convenient. It allows one to ignore anything they actually say and attribute to them instead whatever you care to invent. Not original, but very convenient.

 

[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.