North korea at it again.....

랴연

First a few basic points about what you have said about North Korea. You have made a lot of very specific claims about the DPRK's military capability.

First of all, I don't believe the information you have provided for one simple reason. Any information, either you or I give, is extremely suspect. No one knows concretely what the Norths military capability is but even then, I am going to provide expert or high level office individuals 'guesses' to rebuke some of your claims.

Donald Gregg, a former US ambassador to Seoul and a 30-year CIA veteran, has admitted that the US intelligence on North Korea has been the longest lasting story of failure in the annals of US intelligence.

You said that the DPRK military would not to able to communicate properly because of US jamming technology and outdated equipment.

US Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said that North Korea uses underground optical fibers for military communication

Many people are under the complete misconception that because the DPRK is relatively poor and isolated that it is also backward and not aware of new technology. This is a serious error in judgement.

On March 2 (2003), a U.S. reconnaissance aircraft, an RC-135S Cobra Ball– the Air Force’s most sophisticated optical intelligence collection platform that employs sensitive monitoring devices, advanced optics and in-frared sensors –was intercepted by four armed North Korean MiG-29 and MiG-23 fighter aircraft over the Sea of Japan. According to U.S. military sources, the aircraft was 150 miles from the North Korean coast. The fighters used their targeting radar to lock on the unarmed aircraft and closed within 50 feet.

Not bad for their outdated air force, which I still concede would be destroyed relatively quickly by the US but not quite as easily as you believe. Did the Cobra not see them coming from 150 miles away with all its technology ?

You also talked about the ineffectiveness of the DPRK Artillery.

The US army in Korea is equipped with Paladin anti-artillery guns that can trace enemy shells back to the guns and fire shells at the enemy guns with pin-point accuracy. However, it takes for the Paladins about 10 min to locate the enemy guns, during which time the Paladins would be targeted by the enemy guns Gen. Thomas A Schwartz, a former US army commander in Korea, stated that the US army in Korea would be destroyed in less than three hours.

On armour, yes the tanks and APC's etc are very dated. this doesn't make them ineffective.

North Korea has developed tanks ideally suited for the many rivers and mountains of Korea. These tanks are called "Chun-ma-ho", which can navigate steep slopes and cross rivers as much as 5.5 m deep. North Korea's main battle tanks - T-62s - have 155 mm guns and can travel as fast as 60 km per hour. The US main tanks - M1A - have 120 mm guns and cannot travel faster than 55 km per hour. North Korean tanks have skins 700 mm thick and TOW-II is the only anti-tank missile in the US arsenal that can penetrate this armored skin.

On warfare. You may remember the Vietnam war and the NVA's tunnel warfare.

North Korea is the worlds most-tunneled nation. North Korea's expertise in digging tunnels for warfare was demonstrated during the Vietnam War. North Korea sent about 100 tunnel warfare experts to Vietnam to help dig the 250 km tunnels for the North Vietnamese and Viet Gong troops in South Vietnam. The tunnels were instrumental in the Vietnamese victory.

On Special forces. Its widely accepted that the DPRK has extremely effective special force units, which has been proven by several incidents involving the South. Example.

In September 1996, a North Korean submarine was stranded near Kang-nung and the crew were forced to abandon the ship and land on South Korea. The sub had two special forces agents who had finished a mission in South Korea and were picked up by the sub before the sub ran into a rock. The two men fought off an army of South Korean troops and remained at large for 50 days, during which they killed 11 of the pursuers.

Manic Moran

랴연 wrote: »

You haven't said which problem.

Sorry, thought it was self evident. The claim that the AK series is equivalent in capability to Western rifles, such as the M-16 series.

And this is bad why ?

It demonstrates the difference in philosophy behind the use. The AK is not designed primarily for aimed fire, which is why the first selector position is 'auto.'

What deficiencies ?

I'm sorry. Since you're expressing opinions on rifle capabilities, I thought you knew something of the subject. Because of the larger size of the round out of the AK-47, a soldier can carry fewer of them by either volume or weight. Muzzle velocity is very important for accuracy, and also for terminal ballistics. Even the 5.45mm (Not in common use in the DPRK's line units) is not as fast as the 5.56mm round.

Seemed to do just fine during the Korean war.

Which says something about the age of the rifle, doesn't it? Technology, even rifle technology, has advanced since the '50s.

Is that why discipline is so bad in the US armed forces ? Privates think they are Sergeants?

It's not that bad. The troops tend to work hard, and play hard. When they blow off steam, they occasionally get into trouble. I've rarely noted discipline problems in the field.

US army training is poor and geared towards quantity and speed when compared to countries like the UK.

The US is not looking to fight the UK. Still, an observation made during the larger NATO exercises was that though on the levels from individual soldier through to Battalion or Regiment the US capabilities tended to fall behind the British, for example, but when starting to look at larger scale exercises, such as Division and Corps levels, the US tended to operate better. Partially simply because of practise (the US actually could conduct division-level exercises) and partially because of focus: The US deliberately places more emphasis on combat multipliers. We have the money to get them, and we use them.

Really ? Link please ?

I realise this is a difficult concept in today's Internet world, but the best data on more arcane subjects tends to be found in print.

Calling it in, and calling it in effectively are two separate things.

Not much point in calling something in if you can't call it in effectively, is there?

Generally speaking you just need a location to get an air strike on target.

So you are saying that US JFOs are so stupid it takes them two weeks' training to learn how to get a location? Never mind details such as engagement envelopes, airspace deconfliction, threat assessment, weather effects, elevation estimates and so on.

I don't have one, no source talks like "as effective as ..." bit it does talk about the changes.
I quoted a military article in my last post. Perhaps you should read it again.

Change, for the sake of change, results in nothing. Your quoted article doesn't even remotely address the effectiveness of the DPRK's battlefield systems

Every single advantage you claim is technological. Do you see that as a problem ?

Only if one relies on technology without a plan to operate should that technology fail. For example, that is why we still retain aperture sights on the rifle in case the holosight breaks down, or why we retain illumination rounds for the artillery in case the thermal or IR systems should fail. However, a failure to embrace the advantages of tecnology would leave us still riding around on chariots pulled by horses.

Thats hardly the same thing and you know it isn't.

Why not? You said there was no discernable advantage in the basic issue rifle. Given the differences on the basic issue rifle, I posed exception to the statement.

Do I loose the argument simply because your currently serving or because your arguing for the greatness of the west and how the USA and other western country can kick everyones ass ?

Neither. You're not doing a great job of convincing me that you know what you're talking about, though.

When/Where ? On the same scale as the DPRK ?

Former Yugoslavia was known to have a good system. North Vietnam had the best air defence system in the world at the time, and DPRK systems aren't particularly improved over NVA technology of the 70s.

So the technological superiority would win the day for you no doubt ?

Seems to be doing quite a good job so far when it comes to conventional combat.

Tell me, why didn't this attitude work during the last Korean war ? You were many times the technological superior of the enemy and completely failed to overcome them.

Not so much, actually. For example, the problem with Task Force Ranger was that the US forces were utterly outclassed in equipment by that of the DPRK. Once the equipment came in, the DPRK was pushed to the Yalu river. The technological differences between the UN and China in 1951 was not, however, so great, yet still the UN forces managed to stem the Chinese tide

Congratulations for belting a third world country into the ground.
I consider it akin to wife beating it makes some men feel manly, I just feel its an unfair fight.

What, and DPRK is a first world country? Of course the fight was unfair. It's not supposed to be fair.

I don't think the DPRK leadership has any intention of using their nukes against anyone. Its just my opinion but the regime, while evil, is not stupid. They know that even China would go against them if they launched apre-emptive strike.

Capability is far more important than intent. Intent can change quickly.

If I was American, I'd be much more worried about them selling nukes then actually directly using them.

Another reason to be concerned about a nuclear DPRK.

NTM

Overheal

랴연 wrote: »

You haven't said which problem.
And this is bad why ?
What deficiencies ?

Don't be obtuse.

Seemed to do just fine during the Korean war.

Yes. In the 1950s. Well done.

Is that why discipline is so bad in the US armed forces ? Privates think they are Sergeants ?

I'm not presently in the military and from your posts its clear you are but I can't accept that. I have met so many American soldiers including NCO's who aren't fit to tie their own shoe laces never mind have any kind of responsibility. I've read a lot and I've had opinions from friends in other militaries who have worked alongside American soldiers and everyone was of the same opinion, i.e > That US Army basic training is of a very low standard.

I can't comment on that.

You are talking about quality vs quality in regards to the AKvs M variants. Well the same argument works for soldiers training. US army training is poor and geared towards quantity and speed when compared to countries like the UK.

I don't know about that. Recruiting numbers had reportedly dwindled in recent years and money was re-invested in mechanising more troops by replacing the outdated Steel Coffin known as a hummer with a new oddly shaped fellow of an APC they manufacture not 3 miles from my home in SC. In addition the Stryker program from what I can see with my limited eyes is proving to be quite promising.

Really ? Link please ?
link?
link ?
link ?

Intelligence Briefings... not google.

Calling it in, and calling it in effectively are two separate things.
Generally speaking you just need a location to get an air strike on target.

Again, im just a civvy but I can see one immediate problem with that... theory. Your approach vector for a start. What if your target is obscured by buildings? Your air support needs a heading/vector to both see the enemy and avoid potential danger spots. Not to mention be able to discern boots on the ground for the sake of FF which is not always practical up in the air. Im sure you could call in an A-10 with a location but how effective he is after that is as much dependent on your ability to direct him as it is his ability to fly and shoot.

Every single advantage you claim is technological. Do you see that as a problem ?

Nope. Taliban fighters were outright zealots, and insurgent are damned fanatical. Very determined fighters basically, and appropriately trained in a few cases from what I understand. But they blow up real nice from a few clicks either way.

Thats hardly the same thing and you know it isn't.

Who said anything about fighting fair?

Congratulations for belting a third world country into the ground.
I consider it akin to wife beating it makes some men feel manly, I just feel its an unfair fight.

And yet, you argue we should have gone in with Desert Camo, yet another advantage?

You said that the DPRK military would not to able to communicate properly because of US jamming technology and outdated equipment.

Fiber will only get you so far. I can see how that will keep the highest levels of the gov't and military functioning but will their air support be able to tap into this fiber network? will their planes? their boots?

Many people are under the complete misconception that because the DPRK is relatively poor and isolated that it is also backward and not aware of new technology. This is a serious error in judgement.

Its aware, but simply not in posession of. They'll have perfected their missile systems long after we have polished off our laser program. Even our bullets are reaching the point of self-guided.

Not bad for their outdated air force, which I still concede would be destroyed relatively quickly by the US but not quite as easily as you believe. Did the Cobra not see them coming from 150 miles away with all its technology ?

Honestly. How do you think the cobra knew they intercepted from 150 miles away? As for the Mig-23 its a missile with wings, hardly surprising. I was always a bigger fan of the Sukhoi Flanker though.

Tunnel warfare was long before the age of the Bunker Buster, tbh.

And Chuck Norris.

oscarBravo

This discussion seems better suited to Military than Politics.

Manic Moran

랴연 wrote: »

You said that the DPRK military would not to able to communicate properly because of US jamming technology and outdated equipment.

And what, the artillery battery drives along from place to place towing a large reel of fibre-optic cable behind it? There's no avoiding the electro-magnetic spectrum. Alternatively, they can just stay in place, which is death to a modern artillery unit.

Did the Cobra not see them coming from 150 miles away with all its technology ?

I doubt it. Cobra Ball is basically a flying telescope designed to observe missile launches. It's not equipped with an air intercept radar, nor is it designed to fly around in war zones.

You also talked about the ineffectiveness of the DPRK Artillery.

For the record, Paladin is a general purpose howitzer. I've no idea where they're getting the ten minutes from, though. I assure you that the process is just a tad faster than that these days. The document by Han Ho Suk you quote is so technologically off-base, I would strongly caution against an overreliance. For example:

North Korea has developed tanks ideally suited for the many rivers and mountains of Korea. These tanks are called "Chun-ma-ho", which can navigate steep slopes and cross rivers as much as 5.5 m deep. North Korea's main battle tanks - T-62s - have 155 mm guns and can travel as fast as 60 km per hour. The US main tanks - M1A - have 120 mm guns and cannot travel faster than 55 km per hour. North Korean tanks have skins 700 mm thick and TOW-II is the only anti-tank missile in the US arsenal that can penetrate this armored skin.

This has so many errors, you almost don't know where to start. The T-62 is a 115mm smoothbore, and is a tank which was being blown up by Israeli Shermans in 1973. The 120mm found on Type-88A1 and M1A1 has proven quite capable of destroying more modern tanks than T-62. Secondly, as I said, the tank is uniquely unsuited to the Korean penninsula, contrary to the author's belief, who I doubt is a tank officer (I am). For example, one of the most critical features of tanks in hills is gun elevation. Due to the design of the T-62 series (and indeed, all Eastern bloc designs), the max elevation, and most importantly, max depression of the DPRK tank is horrendously poor. Indeed, the Type-88 tank of ROK has hydropneumatic suspension which further increases the practical range of movement. The top speed is great, if you're driving on a bowling field (Despite the fact that I've personally ridden at over 70km/h in an M1A1). The torque and horsepower is what really counts, for gradient climbs, and particularly hill starts. It is true that the only direct fire missile system capable of going through the front of an upgraded T-62 is TOW-II. Fortunately, it is also the only direct fire missile system in the US service. On the other hand, nothing short of a Maverick has proven capable of beating the front of an M1A1's armoured skin.

The tunnels were instrumental in the Vietnamese victory. [/quote]

Name any tactical engagement which was won by the NVA as a result of its tunnels. (Heck, name any tactical engagement which was won by the NVA). The US's defeat in Vietnam was political, not military.

On Special forces. Its widely accepted that the DPRK has extremely effective special force units, which has been proven by several incidents involving the South. Example.

Granted. It takes a bit more to win a war than SF though.

NTM

랴연

Manic Moran wrote: »

It demonstrates the difference in philosophy behind the use. The AK is not designed primarily for aimed fire, which is why the first selector position is 'auto.'

"difference in philosophy" is not a reason to suggest its bad. Its just different.

I'm sorry. Since you're expressing opinions on rifle capabilities, I thought you knew something of the subject. Because of the larger size of the round out of the AK-47, a soldier can carry fewer of them by either volume or weight. Muzzle velocity is very important for accuracy, and also for terminal ballistics. Even the 5.45mm (Not in common use in the DPRK's line units) is not as fast as the 5.56mm round.

And the 7.62 round will penetrate more then a 5.56 and a 7.62 will rip a hole in you the size of ....

Whats your point ? The rounds are different.

Which says something about the age of the rifle, doesn't it? Technology, even rifle technology, has advanced since the '50s.

Well I assumed we were discussing the AK/M16 and their many variants, not just the original models. In the case of the original models, there is absolutely no contest at all. The M16 was extremely unreliable and unsuited for combat.

Are you suggesting the AK model the DPRK uses is the original design ?

It's not that bad. The troops tend to work hard, and play hard. When they blow off steam, they occasionally get into trouble. I've rarely noted discipline problems in the field.

I can accept that.

The US is not looking to fight the UK. Still, an observation made during ..........

If we're going to start comparing militaries then its probably best to start a new thread.

So you are saying that US JFOs are so stupid it takes them two weeks' training to learn how to get a location? Never mind details such as engagement envelopes, airspace deconfliction, threat assessment, weather effects, elevation estimates and so on.

I made this comment in relation to your comment about artillery. Are you saying you don't need to know things like weather effects, elevation, threat assessment etc etc for Artillery but you do for an Air Strike ?

Former Yugoslavia was known to have a good system. North Vietnam had the best air defence system in the world at the time, and DPRK systems aren't particularly improved over NVA technology of the 70s.

Might want to check out some of those articles in print you referred to earlier.

Not so much, actually. For example, the problem with Task Force Ranger was that the US forces were utterly outclassed in equipment by that of the DPRK. Once the equipment came in, the DPRK was pushed to the Yalu river. The technological differences between the UN and China in 1951 was not, however, so great, yet still the UN forces managed to stem the Chinese tide

Apart from the oh-so-slight advantage of air superiority ?

What, and DPRK is a first world country? Of course the fight was unfair. It's not supposed to be fair.

Sorry, I went for a low blow there. Of course you are correct, in war you never want to fight fair.

Capability is far more important than intent. Intent can change quickly.

You might as well argue that the US are too dangerous to have nukes as NK. While they are a dictatorship, they are not religious nuts and aren't going to do anything to risk starting a war.

Another reason to be concerned about a nuclear DPRK.

Granted.

Manic Moran

랴연 wrote: »

"difference in philosophy" is not a reason to suggest its bad. Its just different.

It is different. It is designed for an unprofessional, minimally trained, conscript army equipped on the cheap. One which you are arguing the DPRK is not.

And the 7.62 round will penetrate more then a 5.56 and a 7.62 will rip a hole in you the size of ....

Neither is correct, actually. The distinction in terminal ballistics between the NATO 7.62x51 and 5.56mm is surprisingly small, and the x51 is far more powerful than the x39 of the AK series. A huge factor in this is, again, muzzle velocity, for both penetration and fragmentation.

Whats your point ? The rounds are different.

Yes. One is better than the other. One is lighter, smaller, more accurate, and more effective. The other is used in the AK-47.

The M16 was extremely unreliable and unsuited for combat.

Not so. The ammunition was extremely unreliable and unsuited for combat. When used as designed, the M-16 was very reliable. The Army sorted itself out by issuing correct ammunition, and issueing new maintenance instructions in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. The rifle became much better, but the reputation remained regardless.

Are you suggesting the AK model the DPRK uses is the original design ?

Pretty similar.

If we're going to start comparing militaries then its probably best to start a new thread.

Granted, but the point was that the US soldier is trained to emphasise not so much individual skills, but the all-arms concept.

I made this comment in relation to your comment about artillery. Are you saying you don't need to know things like weather effects, elevation, threat assessment etc etc for Artillery but you do for an Air Strike ?

Yep. Artillery doesn't much care about cloud cover or airspace deconfliction, for example. The FDC figures out elevation or deadspace for you. If arty causes friendly fire, it's more likely your own damned fault. And so on.

Apart from the oh-so-slight advantage of air superiority ?

Doesn't hurt, but air superiority has never won a war yet.

NTM

Overheal

"air superiority has never won a war yet."

Falklands.

Manic Moran

That was was won by ground forces, and the British never had air superiority. The number of UK warships sunk and damaged by Argentine air attack should attest to that.

NTM

concussion

랴연 wrote: »

Who was it that sent their soldiers to the desert wearing green camo ?

Ireland!

iceage

Hehehehehehehehehehe!:D Well they did! Sorry guys, do go on.

랴연

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not so. The ammunition was extremely unreliable and unsuited for combat. When used as designed, the M-16 was very reliable. The Army sorted itself out by issuing correct ammunition, and issueing new maintenance instructions in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. The rifle became much better, but the reputation remained regardless.

Please see http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/atCarbine070219/

Granted, but the point was that the US soldier is trained to emphasise not so much individual skills, but the all-arms concept.

Which goes against your previous argument about a high level of training which is simply untrue. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying its a "bad" thing, its simply a fact of necessity. A balance between quality and quantity.

Manic Moran

They do seem to be rather giving the RoW the finger with all these tests amidst the international uproar, don't they?

NTM

랴연

Manic Moran wrote: »

They do seem to be rather giving the RoW the finger with all these tests amidst the international uproar, don't they?

I see the DPRK's position as follows.

1. They need attention. Whether they like it or not, they need international aid, especially food. The ruling elite may be dictators but they're not evil per say, whilst its not exactly the most important thing to them, they probably don't want to see the civilian population starving. Whether its out of fear of dissent or genuine human compassion is the question, I'd say a little bit of both.

So they think they need pressure to get this aid.

2. They believe they need nuclear weapons to be safe from invasion. The North was really opening up under Roh Mu Hyun (RIP). Many westerners don't realise the progress made in the late 90's, early 00's. North and South jointly setting up cross-border initiatives, experimenting with capitalism, allowing tourism even for South Korean and American visitors.

The SK president drove across the DMZ and visited Pyongyang, there was talk of limited travel for normal citizens and even talk of economic unification from the North.

The changes were incredible. Then the North seen what happened in Afghanistan, Iraq and listened to George W talking about an axis of evil.

They believe they need nuclear weapons or they could end up like Iraq and I can't really blame them for it. They're probably right.

3. Even taking into account the above, I believe that they would be willing to abandon their nuclear program if the US were to simply talk to them and offer some assurances. But unless I've missed Obama's stance greatly, neither the new South Korean government under Ee Myun Baek nor the US administration is willing to talk to them until they abandon their nuclear program ...which won't happen until they talk to them ....which won't happen until they abandon their nuclear program ... and so on.

ozzirt

I don't feel that North Korea will use their nuclear weapons offensively, but I am less sure that they won't sell one to a rogue state or terrorist organisation.

That would really put the cat among the pigeons.

hutman

Manic Moran wrote: »

All you need to do is go take a drive North and look at the layers of coast-to-coast barriers and anti-vehicle obstacles between Seoul and the DMZ.

In the North all you need to do is take a drive south and see similar defenses between Pyongyang and the DMZ.

asdasd

In the North all you need to do is take a drive south

Drive south in what?

hutman

asdasd wrote: »

Drive south in what?

Well we did it in a coach :rolleyes: I mean in North Korea, drive south along the highway towards the DMZ.

Manic Moran

Some of the cross-border initiatives were indeed noted at the time.

Got to love their idea of tourism, though. Ask Park Wang-ja's family about their vacation, which brought something of a halt to the idea.

NTM

marco murphy

"North Korea at it again..."

The US is at it every single day. The double standards are shocking.

asdasd

The US is at it every single day. The double standards are shocking.

There's always one.

Poccington

Perestroika wrote: »

"North Korea at it again..."

The US is at it every single day. The double standards are shocking.

The US are at what every single day?

darkman2

I don't see the US testing Nuclear Weapons on it's own territory whilst threathening war with it's neighbours.


The US, South Korea and Japan would all have to aid in what would be, by any standards, an enormously catastrophic and expensive war - and what about China? They seem quite content to have a puppet state on their doorstep and not worrying about millions of refugees fleeing across the border. Where would they stand in relation to war? I don't think they would get involved at all.


What if North Korean bound ships are stopped and searched? Will they stick to their vow of pre-emptive strike? Why would they want to take such an action that would inevitably see the downfall of their regime anyway?

They are just a bunch of nutters and loons.

N Korea threatens military action



North Korea says it has abandoned the truce that ended the Korean war, amid rising tension in the region.

It blamed its decision on South Korea joining a US-led initiative to search ships for nuclear weapons.

It said the South's actions were a "declaration of war", and pledged to attack if its ships were stopped.

The move is part of an increasingly hard line being taken by North Korea, and comes two days after it conducted an underground nuclear test.

Meanwhile, South Korean news reports say that steam has been seen coming from a plant at the North's main nuclear facility, a sign that it has made good on its threat to restart efforts to make weapons-grade plutonium.

The United Nations Security Council is working on a strong resolution condemning North Korea's actions, including possible punitive measures.

Anti-proliferation

In a statement to the North's official news agency, KCNA, the military warned that it no longer considered itself bound by the terms of a truce which ended the war between the two Koreas.

That agreement has preserved a tense peace for more than five decades.






The immediate cause of North Korea's actions, it said, was South Korea's announcement on Tuesday that it would definitely join the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) - a US-led campaign to search ships carrying suspicious cargoes to prevent trafficking of weapons of mass destruction.

Joining the PSI "is a natural obligation", South Korean Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan told reporters. "It will help control North Korea's development of dangerous material."

But North Korea's response has been unequivocal.

"Any hostile act against our peaceful vessels, including search and seizure, will be considered an unpardonable infringement on our sovereignty," a spokesman for the North's army told KCNA.

"We will immediately respond with a powerful military strike."

Tensions have already risen significantly across the Korean peninsula in recent weeks.

Provocation

Last month North Korea launched a long-range rocket over Japanese airspace, angering the international community.

Pyongyang said the rocket carried a satellite, but several nations viewed it as cover for a missile test.



The US envoy to the UN strongly criticised the North
The UN Security Council condemned the rocket launch, and in retaliation North Korea announced it was quitting long-running six-nation negotiations on its nuclear disarmament.

It also said it would reopen its main nuclear plant at Yongbyon, which was closed in July 2007 as part of a disarmament deal. According to South Korean media reports, the plant may now be reactivated, as spy satellites have seen steam coming out of it.

On Monday North Korea increased tensions still further, by conducting a powerful underground nuclear test.

It has also fired six short-range missiles in recent days.

International response


NUCLEAR CRISIS
Oct 2006 - North Korea conducts an underground nuclear test
Feb 2007 - North Korea agrees to close its main nuclear reactor in exchange for fuel aid
June 2008 - North Korea makes its long-awaited declaration of nuclear assets
Oct 2008 - The US removes North Korea from its list of countries which sponsor terrorism
Dec 2008 - Pyongyang slows work to dismantle reactor after a US decision to suspend energy aid
Jan 2009 - The North says it is scrapping all deals with the South, accusing it of "hostile intent"
April 2009 - Pyongyang launches a rocket carrying what it says is a communications satellite
25 May 2009 - North Korea conducts a second nuclear test


Q&A: North Korea nuclear test
What is N Korea's game plan?
Diplomats from the five permanent Security Council member countries - plus Japan and South Korea - have been meeting behind closed doors to discuss a new resolution against North Korea.

Washington is calling for a quick and unified response that will make it clear to Pyongyang that there are consequences for its actions.

But US State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said the door was still open to resume long-running six-party talks and that the US was looking at a "whole range of options".

"We are thinking through complicated issues that require very careful consideration," said the US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice.

While the US and Japan are likely to favour a hard line against North Korea, Russia and China are more wary about pushing Pyongyang too far, analysts say.

A few years ago there was real hope of reaching a settlement, when North Korea agreed in February 2007 to abandon its nuclear ambitions in return for aid and diplomatic concessions.

But the negotiations stalled as it accused its negotiating partners - the US, South Korea, Japan, China and Russia - of failing to meet agreed obligations.

BBC

Overheal

BEIJING, May 26 (UPI) -- China, which previously said it "resolutely opposed" North Korea's nuclear testing, has called for a peaceful resolution of the nuclear issue.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu said Tuesday that the U.N. Security Council's actions -- including the condemnation of North Korea's claimed second nuclear test -- should be conducive to a peaceful resolution of the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue.

"We called on all parties concerned to seek calm and proper response, and to pursue peaceful resolution of the issue through consultation and dialogue," the Chinese news service Xinhua reported Ma as saying.

The 15-member Security Council has also planned on an appropriate resolution against the testing.

China, the closest friend of the impoverished and increasingly isolated North Korea, has been critical of Pyongyang's persistence with its nuclear and missile testing despite rising global uproar.

On Monday after North Korea's claims of its second nuclear test, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said the North had ignored the opposition of the international community and that the "Chinese government is resolutely opposed to it."

On Tuesday, Ma said China "strongly demands" North Korea "live up to its commitment to non-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, stop any activity that might worsen the situation and return to the track of the six-party talks."

The six-nation denuclearization talks remain stalled because of North Korea's objections to verification and other requirement in the process. Besides North Korea, the other members are China, the United States, Russia, Japan and South Korea.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/05/26/China-urges-peace-on-Korean-Peninsula/UPI-11851243396316/

Overheal

Poccington wrote: »

The US are at what every single day?

He's trying to imply we are constantly at upgrading and developing our nuclear arsenal. Im not sure how much of that implication is true. There was some talk a while back of modernizing key launch systems but I doubt this has anything to do with warhead development.

Manic Moran

Overheal wrote: »

He's trying to imply we are constantly at upgrading and developing our nuclear arsenal. Im not sure how much of that implication is true. There was some talk a while back of modernizing key launch systems but I doubt this has anything to do with warhead development.

It does and it doesn't. The discussion was due to the fact that the delivery systems (i.e. fuzes, guidance systems etc) could not be repaired because nobody made vacuum tubes any more, and that there was no budget available to replace them with chips.

As long as the currently installed vacuum tubes work, the US nukes will get to where they need to go and blow up. If they run out of tubes, the nukes are still viable, but there's much less control over where they go 'boom'

NTM

Manic Moran

Missed this one.

랴연 wrote: »

Please see http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/atCarbine070219/

The devil is in the details. If you look at the frequency of failures for the M-4 series, for example, (the numbers are quoted down the bottom), in practical terms the failure rate is ridiculously low. Even the lowest figure quoted (That of the Marine test) is one failure of any sort every 370 rounds, which is almost twice as much ammunition the average soldier carries. The largest source of jams is the magazine, not the rifle, and 98% (per 2007 testing) can be cleared by simply clearing the rifle so in practical terms, using the worst statistic, my rifle would fail once in every 88 battles. Is it the most reliable rifle in the world? No, of course not. But it's far from unreliable, and I have the fullest confidence it will go 'bang' when I pull the trigger. It's not failed me yet.

Which goes against your previous argument about a high level of training which is simply untrue. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying its a "bad" thing, its simply a fact of necessity. A balance between quality and quantity.

You miss my point. The training is in the use of the combat multipliers. How to use the battlefield command systems. How to use the various optics or locators. How to call in supporting arms. I can live with someone only shooting 'average' on the range or being able to only run 2 miles in 17 minutes instead of 14 if he is able to loadset an MBITR and call a battalion artillery strike. The one has slightly more lethal effect than the other.

NTM

darkman2

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

magick

Only people that should fear NK is South Korea, although they have a huge army, they also lack modern weapons. China only props up NK so it doesnt have a huge refugee problem at its border.

If the US wanted to, they could easily destroy the NK airforce within days, once they win command of the skys its only a matter of time when NK falls.

b12mearse

magick wrote: »

Only people that should fear NK is South Korea, although they have a huge army, they also lack modern weapons. China only props up NK so it doesnt have a huge refugee problem at its border.

If the US wanted to, they could easily destroy the NK airforce within days, once they win command of the skys its only a matter of time when NK falls.

But what will kim jong do with those nuclear weapons before he goes down.
He sounds like the type that would take alot of people with him.