If a nuclear first strike was an option was available NK wouldn’t have a chance to retaliate. The US has thousands. Nk Korea is very small in comparison to the blast radius of some of these weapons.
What we should worry about is if they use them first. How far off shore is the facility. If it is less then 25 miles then shore bombardment could take care of it. If not it could be a problem. Check the links to your source you will find satellite images of some of the known entrances. There are some vital components in a nuclear plant which require surface contact, without which they would not work. Entrances are the most basics, another is cooling stacks.
The whole bunker buster problem was concieved to combat the problem of underground chemical not nuclear weapons plants. Chemical weapons plants do not contain the surface vulnerabilities that a nuclear weapons plant do.
The problem is, the CIA says it doesn’t know where all the uranium reprocessing facilities are. You can’t bomb what you can’t find. And before you start bombing, you’d better make sure that you know how to stop the enemy from undergoing a crash program to build a bunch of nukes.
So I can see a conventional bombing of the biggest threat, which is the reactor complex north of Pyongyang. That’s the one that can pump out large quantities of plutonium. But if the U.S. needs to go further than that, either using heavy offshore bombardment or a nuclear bunker buster, I think that will be followed immediately by a war of regime-change proportions. Because you can’t piss off Kim Jong-il that much, and then let him go off and think about ways to retaliate. If they drop a nuke on NK, they had better be ready to kill the leadership and help the South Koreans take control of the country (assuming they are willing).
And that’s a frightening prospect, not just because of the casualties, but because China isn’t likely to appreciate it. What if China attempts to stop this by engaging in a little brinksmanship of their own, like they did in the first Korean war?
The Iraq problem is trivial compared to the hornet’s nest that is North Korea.
Yeah. But right know its seems like the best way to piss off Kim is to ignore him. In that case the US wouldn’t half to start anything, they would be less likely to recieve blame and China wouldn’t get involved. The world might even pay less attention to a conflict in Iraq. Seoul would get hit hard by the initial artillery barrage though. If I were them I would be scared of NK too.
I doubt the North Koreans would go to the huge expense of building a cave complex if it was vulnerable to shore bombardment.
I don’t have a good map but from the above link it would seem to be about 25 miles from the shore. If one of you has a good atlas you could calculate it yourself.
“If a nuclear first strike was an option was available NK wouldn’t have a chance to retaliate”
I was referring to targetted attacks against underground facilities not a massive first strike which is probably not even being considered.
Yes the US would be able to strike enough potentail targets with the accuracy of somwhere between Seattle to Portland OR, that would render the delivery methods for their potential handful of nukes useless. Not that I wouldn’t recommend it.
“I doubt the North Koreans would go to the huge expense of building a cave complex if it was vulnerable to shore bombardment.”
Considering the size and shape of their country I don’t. Your talking about the same country that is considering building an underground nuclear plant within the range of shore bombardment. That range is over 25 miles. 25 miles is the range of the primary cannons on an Iowa class Battlehip not of its longer ranged weapons and that of the modern warships that would accompany it. No point in North Korea is that far from the sea.
No check out a map. North Korea has huge areas more than 50 miles from the sea especially close to the China border. They have a hill range called Hamgyong Sanmaek which is away from the shore and probably has many places which would be difficult to bomb. There could be more underground facilities there.
Yes I have before. I repeat shore bombardment range is over 25 miles. Reread. I said 25 miles for the Iowas classes main guns. Shore bombardmentfor its other weapons and the weapons of the accompanying ships is over 50 miles too. No point in NK is that far. —Try 250 miles.—
I thought you said that more than 25 miles could be a problem. So what is the maximum range for shore bombardment? 250 miles? Which ship is this?
No, there is no place in N Korea that far from the sea though a lot of area more than 100 miles.
All this is assuming that shore bombardment can destroy cave complexes. Have there ever trials conducted ? I would imagine it depends on the depth of the cave and the type of rock.
Of course the biggest problem is knowing where these facilities are in the first place.
Until you provide a credible cite for the above, I will assume you are making it up.
I have looked at both of them. The above statements are preposterous.
It seems to me that you are implying that the US is threatening its neighbors in the same way that North Korea threatens its neighbors. Could you provide some evidence that the US is building, for example, a tunnel system to invade Canada? Could you list a few of the millions who have starved to death in the US as the result of a famine, since that number must exceed those who starved in North Korea if the US is worse?
Your most recent examples of how hideous the US is involved unnamed crimes committed by Saudi nationals. If you provided your logic for why the US should be blamed for that, I missed it. Could you be more specific in your condemnations? What threat, specifically, does the US present that is worse than the thugs in North Korea with their nuclear arms?
Again, please be specific. Simply re-posting that the US is evil, evil, evil does nothing to raise your reputation as a debater or as a proponent of rational thought.
And keep in mind that I refuse to take your word for anything.
If you prefer to be treated as background noise, feel free to continue as you are. If you really want to debate, let’s see some genuine debate.
“The Bushies told the North Koreans that they either had to shape up or we’d take them out. Now the North Koreans have called our bluff. And the administration – as signalled by Powell’s comments over the weekend – has caved…” - Joshua Marshall
Yup Marshall is right on the mark. Here is another article about how the administration has mishandled the crucial relationship with South Korea.
The worst mistake was to publicly questioning the “sunshine policy” instead of discussing it in private with the South Koreans. And I suspect that they weren’t too thrilled with the “axis of evil” speech either.
Even when all is said about how tricky the issue is, the incompetence of the Bush administration is amazing.
First thing…excuse me, first smart thing…would be to sound out the SK on how they really feel about having our troops there. If they are amenable, yank 'em out of there toot sweet. They are hostages, and to some degree a provocation. If there is any chance, however remote, that the SK and the NK can work some of this shit out, by all means, lets get our big noses out of thier way.
Further, our troops there are a trip-wire for a potential catastrophe. They serve only as a statement, “Hurt our boys and we’ll nuke the shit out of you.” Speaking just for myself, I don’t want to nuke the shit out of anybody.
Yanking them out too quickly would likely have a destabilizing effect on an already tense situation. Something more along the lines of a phased reduction, in combination with the sale of a few fancy defense systems, might allow us to move towards that same end with a greater chance of success, and certainly less embarassment to the administration.
Perhaps that sounded curt. Let me rephrase. Operative words are “if they are amenable”. And they very well may be. News reports have it that the anti-US sentiment is on the rise in SK, a graceful exit with thier consent offers tremendous “face” to SK and clearly signals NK that the US isn’t spoiling for a fight. Maybe they know that, maybe they don’t. Hell, I’m not that sure, and I live here.
Whether they are amenable or not, it still behooves us to move with deliberation. Anything else would be played up as weakness by enemies of the U.S. all over the world. If the president can save himself a little embarassment while protecting american interests, and weaseling out of a sticky situation, I say more power to him.
QUOTE]If there is any chance, however remote, that the SK and the NK can work some of this shit out, by all means, lets get our big noses out of thier way.
[/QUOTE]
What does Sk and NK have to work out? Really NK is basing their actions on the idea that the US is going to do a sneak attack on them. When will people just admit Kim needs to stop theses games. He is just trying to get US troops out of SK.
If it is just between SK and NK then Why does SK expect the US to give concessions to NK. I personally dn’t think the US should ever send NK a dime or a bread crumb ever again.
Removing Us forces out of Sk would be a mistake. If the US troops are removed 3 things would happen. 1, the SKs that are loyal to the US would feel abandoned. Then NK would have a better shot at invading the south and of course the US would get blamed for not beign there. 2, eventually the US forces would have to come back but the problem is without the 37,000 troops that are already there the returning forces would recieve extra casualties just reestablishing a new base. 3, North Korea would see what a joke it is to deal with the US and they will keep pulling stunts like this.
CyberPundit, maximum distance for shore bombardment is about 250 miles. That means the penninsula would have to be over 500 miles wide to be invulnerable because you can hit it from both sides. 25 miles is the range of an Iowa Class Battleships main guns but not its missiles. Since we are talking about an underground nuclear reactor here that type of complex is vulnerable to shore and air bombardment even without those large cannons. If this target was a bunker or chemical weapons facility over 25 miles off shore then you have a problem. That is why the US is seeking newer versions of its conventional and nuclear bunker busters.
What exactly is your source for saying nuclear reactors can be destroyed by conventional weapons even if they are in a cave complex? Have there been trials conducted or something? Why would anyone bother to build a nuclear reactor in a cave if they are so easy to destroy?
On the contrary. It did stop them. Look at the timetable, NK didn’t start their bomb development program back up until After Bush took office (and started making noises about not wanting to honor the ‘bribery agreement’.)
The Bush administrations refusal to talk with NK is the proximate cause of their new push to develop weapons. Bush tried to diss them, and they called his bluff, simple as that.
I’m guessing that what they really want is to force Bush into talking to them respectfully, so if Bush can sit on his ego for a bit, this might turn out well. Now that they’ve got his attention, the administration seems to be handling this correctly at least to the point of not racheting up the rhetoric.
We’ll see if they can manage the groveling necessary to really make this problem go away however.