Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Beast Tamer]

You have a point there, I'll put that in the final draft. Not now, because I need to turn it in within ten minutes.

[Chaoswizkid]

Assuming an invasion of SK-US joint operation, and with the knowledge or at least very credible assumption that NK has nuclear weapons,

Situation 1: NK launches nuclear warheads using missiles.
Result: Mobile missile defense, which would be deployed using the above assumption, would neutralize the missiles. It is unlikely this system would be overwhelmed as the NK likely does not have enough missiles or nuclear warheads.

Anti missile weaponry isn't perfect. Even the best systems only have a 75%-80% success rate* for intercepting missile weaponry. After all, a ballistic weapon is pretty stealthy, once the burn stage has been completed.

*Don't ask me where I got this number, can't quite remember

Wish you could remember though. I'm wondering if that does apply to ballistic weaponry or not, what era of missile defense it is (because I'm absolutely positive we have stuff now in that category that the public is unaware of), etc.

You're also forgetting the chance for Nuclear suicide bombing. Place a nuke in a submarine, float it under the closest US fleet (Sub will go undetected as it can stay deep in the water, and doesn't need to open hatches to fire it's torpedo's, for example) and detonate. A few weapons detonated in such fashion can eliminate concentrated US fleet presence in the near Pacific.

I would be very, very, very, very surprised if the NK had any submarine that did not sound like a barn full of farm animals being set on fire on sonar, and considering everyone tries to keep tabs on everyone else's subs, even in today's age, we'll likely have sonar listening posts nearby (esp. due to Russia's proximity. Cold War-era sonar stations, even if they haven't been upgraded since, should still identify anything the NK has).

Still, suicide bombing is a valid option, since

You can replace the same scenario with a pick-up truck and Seoul.

is definitely possible, too.

[My Name is Immaterial]

You have a point there, I'll put that in the final draft. Not now, because I need to turn it in within ten minutes.

Good luck!

[Sheb]

For a reference, Iron Dome is about 90% effective. Probably the best system on the market right now.

[10ebbor10]

Assuming an invasion of SK-US joint operation, and with the knowledge or at least very credible assumption that NK has nuclear weapons,

Situation 1: NK launches nuclear warheads using missiles.
Result: Mobile missile defense, which would be deployed using the above assumption, would neutralize the missiles. It is unlikely this system would be overwhelmed as the NK likely does not have enough missiles or nuclear warheads.

Anti missile weaponry isn't perfect. Even the best systems only have a 75%-80% success rate* for intercepting missile weaponry. After all, a ballistic weapon is pretty stealthy, once the burn stage has been completed.

*Don't ask me where I got this number, can't quite remember

Wish you could remember though. I'm wondering if that does apply to ballistic weaponry or not, what era of missile defense it is (because I'm absolutely positive we have stuff now in that category that the public is unaware of), etc.

IIRC (I probably don't), that was for ballistic weaponry intercepted during it's initial launch phase. Afterwards, success changes are far lower. And I think I saw it in some article concerning the European missile shield, so it's rather recent.

You're also forgetting the chance for Nuclear suicide bombing. Place a nuke in a submarine, float it under the closest US fleet (Sub will go undetected as it can stay deep in the water, and doesn't need to open hatches to fire it's torpedo's, for example) and detonate. A few weapons detonated in such fashion can eliminate concentrated US fleet presence in the near Pacific.

I would be very, very, very, very surprised if the NK had any submarine that did not sound like a barn full of farm animals being set on fire on sonar, and considering everyone tries to keep tabs on everyone else's subs, even in today's age, we'll likely have sonar listening posts nearby (esp. due to Russia's proximity. Cold War-era sonar stations, even if they haven't been upgraded since, should still identify anything the NK has).

North Korea has pretty stealthy submarines. They're even exporting these. Still, these are <300 ton midget submarines, so I doubt one could fit a nuke in there. Their larger submarines are the Romeo class, which are about 50 years out of date. However, depending on how deep they can go, they can pass under the thermocline, and maybe even much deeper than that. Sonar doesn't work that great at large depths, and since most submarines have to come closer to fire, most of the anti submarine weaponry is tuned to do so. A nuclear bomb detonated 300 meters below sea level is still a threat (IIRC), but I doubt much ASW gear can reach them there.

For a reference, Iron Dome is about 90% effective. Probably the best system on the market right now.

Not really.  Asides from the small minority report on Wikipedia that states that the effectiveness (defined as warhead destruction in this case) is only 5% , the Iron dome is optimized for Quassam rockets. It would perform significantly worse if ever confronted with a more sophisticated missile.

[mainiac]

You're also forgetting the chance for Nuclear suicide bombing. Place a nuke in a submarine, float it under the closest US fleet (Sub will go undetected as it can stay deep in the water, and doesn't need to open hatches to fire it's torpedo's, for example) and detonate. A few weapons detonated in such fashion can eliminate concentrated US fleet presence in the near Pacific.

You can replace the same scenario with a pick-up truck and Seoul.

If you drive a nuke through a checkpoint, the radiation detectors will go off like crazy.  And it's not like you can sneak in a 2000 ton water tank to hide the radiation.  So the land route is a no-go.

The problem with the suicide sub idea is that you really need a nuclear sub to make it work.  Give the north koreans maybe another 60-70 years and they'll have a nuclear sub.  Until then they're stuck with diesel-electric subs that need to be within snorkel range of the surface to move very far without running out of O2 for the crew and engines.  So they can't get 15 miles out from a US surface group, drop to 300 meters then sail underneath, they'd need to surface close enough to the surface group there is no way they could be missed, even in the most peaceful of peacetimes.

[10ebbor10]

There are other forms of air independent propulsion, though North Korea has none of them, and doesn't have the tech to develop them either.

As for the checkpoint, can't you simply bypass that. I mean, North Korea has plenty of ways to smuggle things into South Korea (Tunnels, submarines) and I doubt every major city entrance has checkpoints.

[Sheb]

We're talking about a invasion here. In the fog of war, it's not impossible to imagine someone sneaking a nuke into Seoul.

Also, their midget submarins have a range of ~50 nm (90 km) submerged. Seems enough to me.

[mainiac]

There are other forms of air independent propulsion, though North Korea has none of them, and doesn't have the tech to develop them either.

As for the checkpoint, can't you simply bypass that. I mean, North Korea has plenty of ways to smuggle things into South Korea (Tunnels, submarines) and I doubt every major city entrance has checkpoints.

Sure I mean you could, theoretically, do those things.  But the North Koreans seem no more capable of those things then they are of the suicide sub strategy.

Also, their midget submarins have a range of ~50 nm (90 km) submerged. Seems enough to me.

Is that submerged at 300m or is that submerged at snorkel depth?

[Culise]

You're also forgetting the chance for Nuclear suicide bombing. Place a nuke in a submarine, float it under the closest US fleet (Sub will go undetected as it can stay deep in the water, and doesn't need to open hatches to fire it's torpedo's, for example) and detonate. A few weapons detonated in such fashion can eliminate concentrated US fleet presence in the near Pacific.

You can replace the same scenario with a pick-up truck and Seoul.

If you drive a nuke through a checkpoint, the radiation detectors will go off like crazy.  And it's not like you can sneak in a 2000 ton water tank to hide the radiation.  So the land route is a no-go.

The problem with the suicide sub idea is that you really need a nuclear sub to make it work.  Give the north koreans maybe another 60-70 years and they'll have a nuclear sub.  Until then they're stuck with diesel-electric subs that need to be within snorkel range of the surface to move very far without running out of O2 for the crew and engines.  So they can't get 15 miles out from a US surface group, drop to 300 meters then sail underneath, they'd need to surface close enough to the surface group there is no way they could be missed, even in the most peaceful of peacetimes.

That's why you don't bring it through checkpoints; you use an incursion tunnel like the four that South Korea's already discovered.  They're big enough to admit an entire infantry division in an hour, so driving a single nuclear device through would be easy (at least, relative to sneaking it through the most heavily-militarized border in the entire world). 

EDIT:
Really, though, the biggest threat I think a North Korean warhead poses is essentially a nuclear landmine.  This actually defends them against a potential Chinese incursion as well - it was only a couple short decades ago that China was expressing its displeasure with certain neighbours by the use of military force (India, Vietnam, and the USSR; relations with the first two are still sour, though they've patched things up with Russia), and China has not been pleased at all by DPRK behaviour in the last few years.  Basically, since the terrain in North Korea limits the viable paths for an invasion force, they can bury one under the road to Pyongyang and watch the fireworks as a sort of "last hurrah."

[FearfulJesuit]

I'd be a lot more worried about a dirty bomb in Seoul than a nuke.

[Sheb]

Why?

[FearfulJesuit]

Well, as others have stated, it'd be pretty hard to get a real nuke into Seoul. But a dirty bomb, hey, that's a lot easier to use.

[10ebbor10]

Not really. The main problem with smuggling the nuke are radiation detectors, and both the dirty bomb and the real nuke would set off the sensors. The dirty bomb probably even more so than the real one.

[FearfulJesuit]

Not really. The main problem with smuggling the nuke are radiation detectors, and both the dirty bomb and the real nuke would set off the sensors. The dirty bomb probably even more so than the real one.

Is there any reason, really, why NK couldn't use a giant-ass cannon or slingshot to send a nuke into Seoul?