Article

2006-06-20 China-Japan-Koreas

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Ebbineper Ebbeaper1581 2006-06-20 02:00|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Link

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-06-20 08:32|| 2006-06-20 08:32|| Front Page Top

#2 How much face does Kimmie lose if the US shoots down the Taepodong? Or does the Army get embarassed? Actions like this *always* have some element of internal power struggle about them.

Posted by Jonathan">Jonathan 2006-06-20 09:34|| 2006-06-20 09:34|| Front Page Top

#3 I'd expect one of those nasty fueling accidents. Touchy stuff, rocket fuel. Apt to explode for no apparent reason. That's why you need really good SEALS...

Posted by Chuck Simmins">Chuck Simmins 2006-06-20 09:44|| http://northshorejournal.org]">[http://northshorejournal.org] 2006-06-20 09:44|| Front Page Top

#4 Chuck: Great idea! I hope there's someone in the Pentagon who's at least as devious as you.

Posted by Mike 2006-06-20 10:10|| 2006-06-20 10:10|| Front Page Top

#5 This is high risk poker. If the ABM works in a real world test like this, the chips get moved around everywhere. We'll suddenly be a lot more popular and the MM will be a lot more isolated and powerless. Amazing how little press truly world changing events like this get till decades after the fact.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-06-20 10:19|| 2006-06-20 10:19|| Front Page Top

#6 Don't we have a satellite with a laser on it yet?
That would be the thing to use. The whole rocket pad would be scorched and they would never figure it out.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2006-06-20 11:00|| 2006-06-20 11:00|| Front Page Top

#7 Light it up with the radars and let it go. But, really, really, light it up.

Posted by 6 2006-06-20 11:51|| 2006-06-20 11:51|| Front Page Top

#8 Activate the phaser shields Scottie.

Posted by ????? 2006-06-20 12:31|| 2006-06-20 12:31|| Front Page Top

#9 I have a slight worry that NK may have some nuke mines on the sea floor near where the Aegis might be. If they set them off at the same time as the launch it would complicate things.. That Kimmy is just to juche stupid!

Posted by 3dc 2006-06-20 12:31|| 2006-06-20 12:31|| Front Page Top

#10 I bet there will be no near-term cries to restrict funding for Missle Defense.

Posted by Captain America 2006-06-20 14:48|| 2006-06-20 14:48|| Front Page Top

#11
"Don't we have a satellite with a laser on it yet?"

Ah...no! But we are beaming down an away-party of five, with tricorders and the spare dylithium crystals.

EU

Posted by Elminerong Uloque4172 2006-06-20 15:00|| 2006-06-20 15:00|| Front Page Top

#12 Realities and constraints:

1) If the NKors launch their missile, and it gets off the ground, and tracks over the Pacific such that it doesn't violate airspace of any other country, legally there is nothing we can do about it. We shouldn't do anything about it other than track and learn everything we can. This is as much an opportunity for us as it is for them. The Aegis class ships in the region with SM-3 missiles will find this a useful 'dry-run' exercise.

2) If the NKors launch and the missile tracks over another country (e.g., Japan), but not the U.S., it's a dicier situation. They did this once before. If the trajectory indicates a fly-over to a landing the Pacific, in the short-term we do nothing except learn. But longer-term, we and the Japanese would have every reason to a) accelerate our SM-3 and GBI systems b) offer both to the Japanese at cut-rate prices c) make clear to the NKors that no further fly-overs will be tolerated -- any such missile will be intercepted and brought down. We might then stage a demonstration of the SM-3 system near Japan and let the Chinese track it -- be sure they'll pass on the info to the NKors.

3) If the NKor missile tracks to hit Japan, all bets are off.

4) If the NKor missile tracks to hit American soil, ditto. Even if it doesn't have a nuclear warhead (and you don't know for sure until it lands), it is an unprovoked act of war. We're legally entitled to obliterate them at that point. Whether that's the smartest thing to do is another consideration. The biggest problem is political, and it's spelled C-H-I-N-A.

There's no clear evidence that China would step aside and let us wipe out their lap dog. The last time this was attempted (November, 1950) we had a problem. We'd need a clear assurance from China that we could retaliate against the NKors without causing a wider war, and I see no reason why China would provide that assurance (short of an actual nuclear strike by the NKors; if the NKors nuke American soil we won't be asking anyone's permission for whatever we do).

Ditto Russia, though I think Putin wouldn't be bothered by this too much as long as he was well-paid and no radiation hit Russian soil.

Further, the NKors have an effective deterrent to anything less than a nuclear obliteration: over 13,000 artillery tubes, 155 mm and larger, aimed at Seoul. These are very well dug in to mountains just north of the DMZ. Even though we know where most of them are, hitting them, particularly in time to stop the devestation of Seoul, is another matter (consider 4 shells per minute per tube and you begin to see the destructive power at hand).

This forces our hand on a retaliatory strike against a non-nuclear NKor missile that hits American soil: it either needs to be a) surgical to remove the NKor leadership, with obvious problems in knowing where they are at that moment (remember, the Air Force tried to whack Saddam at least twice and missed), or b) total nuclear strike to destroy the NKor military forces. No in-between military strike works, because the surviving artillery tubes wipe out Seoul and (perhaps) a couple million civilians.

And for a total nuclear strike, you're back to the China/Russia problem.

So those are the obvious constraints.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2006-06-20 15:38|| 2006-06-20 15:38|| Front Page Top

#13 Good post Steve.

I'd add only that there are apparently internationally recognized procedures for providing warning of missile tests that land outside one's territory. If the Norks follow these procedures, I would agree we should do nothing unless the trajectory surprises us. However, if they do not, I believe an intercept is more justified as it could affect shipping, etc.

Anybody know anything about the obligations NK should have for announcing the test to mariners and pilots?

Posted by JAB 2006-06-20 16:10|| 2006-06-20 16:10|| Front Page Top

#14 Japan already has a bid in for SM-3.

If the Nork is going to overshoot Japan, condition 2, I don't think we have any legal problem splashing it if the Japanese ask us to. And doing so would send a strong message to lots of people. We should do so if we can.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-06-20 16:21|| 2006-06-20 16:21|| Front Page Top

#15 IF we can come up with a rationale for splashing it (and i think this is what John Bolton is urgently discussing with counterparts at the UNSC, and yes, why its good to have softpower and stinking allies - if youre in a borderline situation, and decide to go a bit beyond whats been done before, it makes anyone doing anything BACK to you - directly or indirectly -less likely) AND it works, and we do knock the sucker out of the sky, I for one, will come here and congratulate all those who said ballistic missile defense is feasible. You have my word.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-06-20 16:59|| 2006-06-20 16:59|| Front Page Top

#16 "The last time this was attempted (November, 1950) we had a problem"

China didnt go in when we occupied Pyongyang, IIUC, and basically crippled the Nkor state. It was only we got close to the border.

How China reacts depends, I think, on how seriously we take THEIR interests while we deal with Nkor.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-06-20 17:02|| 2006-06-20 17:02|| Front Page Top

#17 "French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, speaking after talks with Annan, said any North Korean missile test must draw a "firm and just" international response."

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-06-20 17:09|| 2006-06-20 17:09|| Front Page Top

#18 Light it up, that's all we can and should do for the present. Launching ~~missiles~~ rockets isn't illegal yet. US polar missions have been known to overfly other countries at less than 50 miles on launch leg.

Posted by 6 2006-06-20 17:26|| 2006-06-20 17:26|| Front Page Top

#19 Steve, re scenario 1. It's not possible to fire a missile from NK into the Pacific without crossing another countries airspace.

Posted by phil_b">phil_b 2006-06-20 18:32|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/] 2006-06-20 18:32|| Front Page Top

#20 any North Korean missile test must draw a "firm and just" international response

A. A vigorous finger-wagging

B. A sternly worded letter

C. A congratulatory telegram on the 'success of the NK space program'.

D. A and B

E. None of the above.

Posted by Pappy 2006-06-20 21:03|| 2006-06-20 21:03|| Front Page Top

#21 "1) If the NKors launch their missile, and it gets off the ground, and tracks over the Pacific such that it doesn't violate airspace of any other country, legally there is nothing we can do about it."
Actually, Steve, if our missile doesn't violate the airspace of any other country, but it bumps into their missile, then all we have to do is refer them to John Bolton for settlement of claims.

Posted by Darrell 2006-06-20 21:21|| 2006-06-20 21:21|| Front Page Top

#22 Further, the NKors have an effective deterrent to anything less than a nuclear obliteration: over 13,000 artillery tubes, 155 mm and larger, aimed at Seoul. These are very well dug in to mountains just north of the DMZ. Even though we know where most of them are, hitting them, particularly in time to stop the devestation of Seoul, is another matter (consider 4 shells per minute per tube and you begin to see the destructive power at hand).

Steve, I'd like to request a realistic reassessment of this often bandied about statistic. The barrage of Seoul, as cited, would require millions of artillery shells. The poverty afflicting North Korea also extends to its military. Some questions:

1. Is this vast stockpile of ammunition test-fired on a regular basis?

2. Have the shells that are past their shelf-life been rotated out?

3. Has the North Korean military at all been able to afford restocking what must be extremely stale ordnance?

4. Can their outdated tubes withstand a sustained firing rate for more than even a few rounds?

I feel that Kim has effectively crippled much of his military through a combination of sheer poverty and obsessive paranoia. Remember, no soldiers are ever issued live ammunition during exercises in front of their fearless leader. With their endemic food shortages, I doubt the military is carrying out live fire field exercises on a regular basis.

One has to wonder if an explosion in one of their border region shell magazines would even have any secondary rounds cooking off.

Posted by Zenster 2006-06-20 21:25|| 2006-06-20 21:25|| Front Page Top

#23 Shame the ABL isn't ready for a test run. No way the Norks could ever prove what happened in that scenario.

Posted by AzCat 2006-06-20 21:34|| 2006-06-20 21:34|| Front Page Top

#24 shoot it down

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-06-20 21:54|| 2006-06-20 21:54|| Front Page Top

#25 Yup, Frank. The North Koreans must NOT be allowed to know if their technology is functional and, therefore, marketable. They have proliferated enough. That sh!t's over with.

Posted by Zenster 2006-06-20 22:15|| 2006-06-20 22:15|| Front Page Top

#26 I would work closely with Japan. They are literally on the front line in this situation. Kimmie is using this missile test and all the hoopla accompanying it as a sword-rattling exercise. He does not have a lot of other options. The Bush administration is not playing his game anymore, so all Kimmie can do is to threaten, and try to use SKor to divide and conquer the allies. Even this game is starting to wear thin with the SKors.

When you threaten countries, and set up a missile system, your potential adversaries have to link up the two as an assumption. It is only prudent. Therefore, I am with Frank. Shoot the frigging missile down. The NORKS have only one purpose for the missile, and that is to threaten their adversaries (Japan, SKor, and the US).

Posted by Alaska Paul in Nikolaevsk, Alaska 2006-06-20 22:22|| 2006-06-20 22:22|| Front Page Top

#27 #22 Z: "One has to wonder if an explosion in one of their border region shell magazines would even have any secondary rounds cooking off."

Let's find out. :-D

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2006-06-20 22:28|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html] 2006-06-20 22:28|| Front Page Top

#28 I am with AP and Frank. If it works (still an if) deal with it. If it's heading for the US, Canada or Japan splash it.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2006-06-20 22:39|| 2006-06-20 22:39|| Front Page Top

#29 Let's find out.

As always, Barbara, I love the way you think.

Personally, I doubt if even 10% of those legendary artillery rounds are viable. And, remember, that meager 10% is randomly distributed in the stockpiles.

Posted by Zenster 2006-06-20 22:45|| 2006-06-20 22:45|| Front Page Top

#30 If we can take it down, Iran would be getting a message, not just the NorKs.

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2006-06-20 23:28|| http://radio.weblogs.com/0103811/categories/currentEvents/]">[http://radio.weblogs.com/0103811/categories/currentEvents/] 2006-06-20 23:28|| Front Page Top

08:52 pihkalbadger
00:00 newc
23:36 bigjim-ky
23:31 Seafarious
23:28 Kalle (kafir forever)
23:20 Anonymoose
23:13 Frank G
23:12 Frank G
23:06 ed
23:04 Oldspook
23:01 ed
22:57 RWV
22:47 Anonymoose
22:46 Eric Jablow
22:45 Zenster
22:44 Anonymoose
22:40 Zenster
22:39 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:34 Oldspook
22:34 Eric Jablow
22:33 xbalanke
22:33 2b
22:31 Oldspook
22:30 Oldspook