pixel
DIY Trader
- Joined
- 3 February 2010
- Posts
- 5,359
- Reactions
- 345
How self-reliant do you want to be?Whatever happened to self-reliance?
How self-reliant do you want to be?
Read the abc article Rumpy linked to above: There is no military defense against a NK ICBM fired by the madman to hit Australia. You can hope it misses its target. You can track its descent and calculate the approximate location of impact. But you can't stop it with anything from boomerang to bullet.
Leaves diplomacy. Send Tony Abbott to talk his kind of sense to the young 'un Kim? Or let Barnaby lecture him about agriculture vs coal mines? Bore him to death with reruns of Home & Away or Neighbours?
North Korea is powerless to prevent a U.S. strike on its nuclear program, but retaliation is well within its means. The significant military capability that North Korea has built up against South Korea is not advanced by Western standards, but there are practical ways Pyongyang could respond to aggression.
The North Korean military's most powerful tool is artillery. It cannot level Seoul as some reports have claimed, but it could do significant damage.
...
Tube and Rocket Artillery
The biggest anticipated cost of a North Korean artillery barrage in response to an attack would be the at least partial destruction of Seoul. But the volume of fire that the North can direct against the South Korean capital is limited by some important factors. Of the vast artillery force deployed by the North along the border, only a small portion — Koksan 170-mm self-propelled guns, as well as 240-mm and 300-mm multiple launch rocket systems — are capable of actually reaching Seoul. Broadly speaking, the bulk of Pyongyang's artillery can reach only into the northern border area of South Korea or the northern outskirts of Seoul.
All forms of North Korean artillery have problems with volume and effectiveness of fire, but those issues are often more pronounced for the longer-range systems. Problems include the high malfunction rate of indigenous ammunition, poorly trained artillery crews, and a reluctance to expend critical artillery assets by exposing their positions.
Based on the few artillery skirmishes that have occurred, roughly 25 percent of North Korean shells and rockets fail to detonate on target. Even allowing for improvements and assuming a massive counterstrike artillery volley would be more successful, a failure rate as high as 15 percent would take a significant bite out of the actual explosive power on target. The rate of fire and accuracy of North Korean artillery systems is also expected to be subpar. This belief is founded on the observably poor performance of North Korean artillery crews during past skirmishes and exercises. Though inaccuracy is less noticeable in a tactical sense — especially as part of a "countervalue attack," where civilian areas are targeted — at the higher level an artillery retaliation rapidly becomes a numbers game.
...
Although North Korea could technically open fire on South Korea with all of its artillery systems at once, this would open Pyongyang up to significant counter-battery fire and airstrikes that could rapidly reduce the artillery force it has so painstakingly built up. Instead, as other studies have shown, only a portion of North Korean artillery would be used at a time. This is particularly true for the advanced systems that are most important to Pyongyang: long-range artillery that is able to strike at Seoul. The heavier, more advanced systems are not only difficult to replace, but they are also priority targets for counter-battery fire and airstrikes. Even when firing, artillery systems would be able to do so only temporarily before relocating or otherwise trying to hide the system's firing location to avoid destruction.
"Artillery is not that lethal," says Anthony Cordesman, who holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), and is a national security analyst for ABC News. "It takes a long time for it to produce the densities of fire to go beyond terrorism and harassment." Even in a worst-case scenario, where both U.S. and South Korean forces are somehow paralyzed or otherwise engaged, and North Korea fires its 170mm artillery batteries and 240mm rocket launchers with total impunity, the grim reality wouldn't live up to the hype. Buildings would be perforated, fires would inevitably rage and an unknown number of people would die. Seoul would be under siege—but it wouldn't be flattened, destroyed or leveled.
Somewhere I said I'd dig up some info on the damage the North could actually do to Seoul....
This article gives a pretty balanced breakdown of what is achievable by NK.
https://worldview.stratfor.com/analysis/how-north-korea-would-retaliate
And I like this quote, because it agrees with me!
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6212/north-korea-and-flattening-seoul/
And I like this quote, because it agrees with me!
insane
ɪnˈseɪn/
adjective
adjective: insane
1.
in a state of mind which prevents normal perception, behaviour, or social interaction; seriously mentally ill.
The videos and pictures of missile testing show an individual directing proceedings that matches the above definition. It will be incredible if the ego retreats now. Big missile, small you-know-what. Oh and people with stubby arms and a fat guts can't fight.
There aren't enough nuclear weapons in the world to destroy all life. Molten planet and Ice Age has not been able to do this. There will be millions of people killed and countless other organisms but not all life. The DD preppers will have the best chance at survival post nuclear destruction and all life forms have adaptive capability.I mean, there's a handful of people, on all sides, who has the power to destroy all life on earth.
That's insane!
Yes no nuclear weapons is the safest way forward for the human race. I suppose that is why not all countries are allowed to hold them at present. Reasons being potential to use them indiscriminately for attack and threaten neighbours.Trump being unstable aside, why in the heck should anyone be comfortable with anyone with nukes?
There aren't enough nuclear weapons in the world to destroy all life. Molten planet and Ice Age has not been able to do this. There will be millions of people killed and countless other organisms but not all life. The DD preppers will have the best chance at survival post nuclear destruction and all life forms have adaptive capability.
Yes no nuclear weapons is the safest way forward for the human race. I suppose that is why not all countries are allowed to hold them at present. Reasons being potential to use them indiscriminately for attack and threaten neighbours.
The problem is, you can't un-invent an invention. It's widely known, and anybody with the necessary means can repeat the manufacture, regardless of his level of insanity.Saw an interview with a former CIA analyst, I think... anyway, he raised a good point when shown a video of some former US intel chief worrying about Trump's stability with the nukes... The guy said... Trump being unstable aside, why in the heck should anyone be comfortable with anyone with nukes?
I mean, there's a handful of people, on all sides, who has the power to destroy all life on earth.
That's insane!
Heard that the nukes themselves doesn't need to directly end life on Earth. It's what they cause - that nuclear winter from the ashes and clouds and fire from forests (potentially if strike near it).
Indeed. It might have been hard to work it out in the first place but the means is widely enough known now that anyone with heavy manufacturing capability and access to raw materials could get themselves some nukes if they really wanted to. And there's enough deposits of uranium in the ground, and enough of the stuff around above ground, that cutting off the supply of materials won't stop them either. Sad but that's how it is.The problem is, you can't un-invent an invention. It's widely known, and anybody with the necessary means can repeat the manufacture
Indeed. It might have been hard to work it out in the first place but the means is widely enough known now that anyone with heavy manufacturing capability and access to raw materials could get themselves some nukes if they really wanted to. And there's enough deposits of uranium in the ground, and enough of the stuff around above ground, that cutting off the supply of materials won't stop them either. Sad but that's how it is.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?