Quote from: http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/725273.html
North Korea today made a series of artillery shots towards a south-korean island locaed in the border zone of the Yellow Sea which caused injuries to at least 14 soldiers, informed the south-korean agency Yonhap.
According to military sources from south-korea consulted by Yonhap, north korea shot about 50 rounds of artillery around 14:24 local time that impacted the island of Yeongpyeong and waters of South Korea.
Supposedly there was a big show with fighters patrolling and whatnot.
Yeah, shits going down.
Maybe Jong-il is more ill than widely believed? Military is acting now to lock Jong-un into a hostile relationship with South Korea, to assure their power base once Jong-il is dead?
Supposedly Russia and China are freaking out, let me find it.
Everyone is. This is a very serious violation of the truce, one of the most serious I can recall (and we're talking about a nation which once built a tunnel capable of holding regiments worth of troops under the Seoul, and blew up nearly the entire South Korean cabinet in Burma). China wants in on a new, more open North Korea which wont happen if a war kicks off. Not sure of Russia's stake in this, but they cant be happy with a shooting war either.
OH THIS MIGHT BE INTERESTING
Quote from: http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/725275.html
The norkorean attack coincides with the visit of the special representative of the USA for north-korea, Stephen Bosworth, whom starts today a trip of two days to Pekín, during which he will interview with the vice-minister of External Affairs, Cui Tiankai, and the special representative for the korean conflict, Wu Dawei.
So maybe its a "were not pussy-footing with American diplomats" ?
Definitely figures into in. Six nation talks have also been suspended.
In other news, M*A*S*H* season 12 has been greenlit.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11818729
Goes over reason this could have been done.
Quote from: Subetai on November 23, 2010, 09:24:28 AM
Yeah, shits going down.
Maybe Jong-il is more ill than widely believed? Military is acting now to lock Jong-un into a hostile relationship with South Korea, to assure their power base once Jong-il is dead?
I thought Jong-Un isn't believed to be as hostile?
Quote from: Suu on November 23, 2010, 12:38:29 PM
Quote from: Subetai on November 23, 2010, 09:24:28 AM
Yeah, shits going down.
Maybe Jong-il is more ill than widely believed? Military is acting now to lock Jong-un into a hostile relationship with South Korea, to assure their power base once Jong-il is dead?
I thought Jong-Un isn't believed to be as hostile?
If I understand correctly no one really knows much about him.
Cain, what do you think the US response will be if all out hostilities were to erupt?
I know I'm not Cain, but I think it would maybe hinge partly on how close NK ordinances land on our bases in SK. I mean, I think it all boils down to Obama. He's played the hawk with the drones and Afghanistan but I wonder how quick he would be to get involved in this theater.
it's scary as hell to think about, is all i know...
I'm no Cain either, but this isn't agression, this is attention getting of the toddler variety.
there goes the neighborhood.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 23, 2010, 02:50:34 PM
I know I'm not Cain, but I think it would maybe hinge partly on how close NK ordinances land on our bases in SK. I mean, I think it all boils down to Obama. He's played the hawk with the drones and Afghanistan but I wonder how quick he would be to get involved in this theater.
Probably pretty quickly. This is the sort of war we do well.
Wiki
QuoteThe shelling caused several casualties among the South Koreans on Yeongpyeong. Two South Korean marines, Sergeant Jeong-wu Seo and Private Gwang-wuk Moon, were killed, six were seriously wounded, and ten were treated for minor injuries. At least three civilians were also wounded.[1] Additionally, the attack started fires on the island.[10]
The North Korean attack had a global impact on the financial markets. Several Asian currencies weakened against the euro and U.S. dollar while at the same time Asian stock markets declined.[14] The effects the shelling had in the financial industry led the South Korea's central bank, the Bank of Korea, to hold an emergency meeting to assess the impact of the fighting on the markets.[15]
President Lee instructed the military to strike North Korea's missile base near the coastline artillery position if there was an indication of further provocation.[16]
Hong-gi Lee, the Director of Operations of ROK JCS, announced in a press conference "There may be a considerable number of North Korean casualties".[17]
Apparently, North Korea fired about 100 shells, and South Korea about 80, alongside some air support.
North Korea wound up with a bloody nose.
Quote from: Suu on November 23, 2010, 12:38:29 PM
I thought Jong-Un isn't believed to be as hostile?
That's the problem. Militaries, as a rule, gain power within a political structure when the threat of war is high. Plus, there are indications that Jong-un is attempting to strengthen the largely defunct Korean Workers Party against the military, who wield most of the power within the country, and that he has Chinese help in this.
By locking him into a hostile relationship with South Korea, the USA and China through their threatening actions, they strengthen their hand within the North Korean government for the forseeable future.
Quote from: Iptuous on November 23, 2010, 02:41:35 PM
Cain, what do you think the US response will be if all out hostilities were to erupt?
I dont see it happening, but if it did, the US would certainly intervene. I believe it still has thousands of troops stationed on the south side of the DMZ, and it wouldn't take long for the navy and airforce to involve themselves in an offshore balancer role ie; propping up and aiding the South Koreans with bombing sorties, naval bombardment and blockades, that kind of thing. The North Korean military is a fairly modern military, based along Soviet Red Army lines. It is pretty much the foe the modern US military was designed to fight, only less technologically adept, well trained or as numerous as the real Red Army.
The only worry is, of course, the nukes.
Quote from: Subetai on November 23, 2010, 06:42:26 PM
I dont see it happening, but if it did, the US would certainly intervene. I believe it still has thousands of troops stationed on the south side of the DMZ, and it wouldn't take long for the navy and airforce to involve themselves in an offshore balancer role ie; propping up and aiding the South Koreans with bombing sorties, naval bombardment and blockades, that kind of thing. The North Korean military is a fairly modern military, based along Soviet Red Army lines. It is pretty much the foe the modern US military was designed to fight, only less technologically adept, well trained or as numerous as the real Red Army.
The only worry is, of course, the nukes.
1. The US 2d Infantry Division, plus a bag of armor and Marines, are stationed on the DMZ.
2. North Korean nukes? They'd have to ship them to ground zero on a train.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 23, 2010, 07:32:56 PM
2. North Korean nukes? They'd have to ship them to ground zero on a train.
Or strap them onto a person, horse, car etc...
Then again, launching a payload on a rocket that could hit South Korea is probably not nearly as difficult as trying to aim for the US. They could just borrow some Qassams from their business partners...
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 23, 2010, 07:32:56 PM
1. The US 2d Infantry Division, plus a bag of armor and Marines, are stationed on the DMZ.
2. North Korean nukes? They'd have to ship them to ground zero on a train.
Thought so, to the former, but I cannot double check, with my computer being so slow right now. 40,000 seems to be a number that rings a bell, but I like to factcheck such things.
And yeah, to the later, but the North Koreans probably
would. Anything but their missiles would be my preferred option, in their place. I assume at least one DPRK general is also thinking the same.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 23, 2010, 07:32:56 PM
1. The US 2d Infantry Division, plus a bag of armor and Marines, are stationed on the DMZ.
2. North Korean nukes? They'd have to ship them to ground zero on a train.
http://www.missilethreat.com/missilesoftheworld/id.166/missile_detail.asp
Or you know.. they could use that to hit anywhere in the pacific theater.
Quote from: geekdad on November 24, 2010, 03:53:29 AM
http://www.missilethreat.com/missilesoftheworld/id.166/missile_detail.asp
Or you know.. they could use that to hit anywhere in the pacific theater.
Yeah, now try to stick a nice, HUGE primitive nuke on it.
It'd be like sticking a bottle rocket up Rush Limbaugh's ass and expecting to hit Canada.
Those are the North Korean missiles that keep failing and falling into the ocean, and whose threat has been hyped by government linked defense analysts who point out yes, theoretically, those missiles could hit Alaska, but leave out the assumptions like competent engineering, the wind blowing the right way and North Korea being able to import enough duct tape to hold the missile together, none of which are minor considerations when it comes to their ballistic missile program.
They're more likely to attack Japan than anyone else, since they know they can hit Japan and it'll whip up Korean racism both sides of the border, in their favour. Plus there is a nice, tempting target on Okinawa in the form of a major US military base...
So essentially what you're saying is...yell they have nukes, but the actual odds of them working PROPERLY is relatively low.
Their nukes should work...they are based on Pakistani designs (though with certain safety features deactivated, so if they did land somewhere and fail to go off, removing the nuclear warhead would in fact be very easy), its the missiles that are the problem, the delivery system.
Well, as the saying goes, the theory of a nuke is easy. Quickly compress radioactive material until it hits critical mass.
Actually getting that to happen is much more difficult.
What's the deployment of the US anti missile cruisers in the Pacific right now?
Quote from: Subetai on November 24, 2010, 02:30:07 PM
Their nukes should work...they are based on Pakistani designs (though with certain safety features deactivated, so if they did land somewhere and fail to go off, removing the nuclear warhead would in fact be very easy), its the missiles that are the problem, the delivery system.
How much does a Pakistani nuke weigh?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 24, 2010, 02:30:24 PM
Well, as the saying goes, the theory of a nuke is easy. Quickly compress radioactive material until it hits critical mass.
Actually getting that to happen is much more difficult.
Are these classic fission or fusion nukes?
If they're based on pakistani designs, I'm going to assume fission.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 24, 2010, 04:38:33 AM
Yeah, now try to stick a nice, HUGE primitive nuke on it.
It'd be like sticking a bottle rocket up Rush Limbaugh's ass and expecting to hit Canada.
:lulz: Thank you for the mental image.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 24, 2010, 05:31:05 PM
How much does a Pakistani nuke weigh?
Their largest is somwhere between 12 and 40 kilotons based on the 1998 tests....North Korean testing has been estimated at sub-kiloton levels. One North Korean missile is a variant on the SS-4 Soviet cruise missile, which could theoretically hold a 1.3 kiloton weapon...there is also a variant on the Shabab III, which could hold up to a one kiloton weapon, maybe....but that aside North Korea is mostly armed with Scuds.
Quote from: Subetai on November 24, 2010, 05:42:51 PM
Their largest is somwhere between 12 and 40 kilotons based on the 1998 tests....North Korean testing has been estimated at sub-kiloton levels. One North Korean missile is a variant on the SS-4 Soviet cruise missile, which could theoretically hold a 1.3 kiloton weapon...there is also a variant on the Shabab III, which could hold up to a one kiloton weapon, maybe....but that aside North Korea is mostly armed with Scuds.
Scuds can reach SK and Japan from there, right?
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 24, 2010, 05:50:46 PM
Scuds can reach SK and Japan from there, right?
South Korea definitely...Japan
maybe. Depending on the wind direction. 99% of the country is outside of the range for a Scud missile, but there is always the possibility of a couple of high performers getting through.
Not yield, mass of the warhead, I'm trying to think how much work making a missile that can carry a N Korea nuke would be, or to scale down the size of their warheads. Compared to say, the early US nukes (the smallest of which massed at 4000 kg (274 slugs in American)) N korea doesn't have a prayer of getting a nuke off the ground with the missiles it has. If they have designs for a 600 kg warhead, then even if they don't have that done yet they have a missile that can deliver it once they manage to duplicate the rest of the designs.
Though, sub kiloton, really? I didn't even know it was possible to make a nuke that small. Is that because they're trying to make it small, or did they do a shitty job with the chain reaction and its going to spread plutonium all over the blast area?
If they have radioactive material, then a 'dirty bomb' scenario might be more feasible... I dunno.
Well, Pakistani designs rely on 15-20kg of highly enriched uranium. At the time Pakistan was doing the testing, it was trying to show it could match India in the nuclear weapons stakes, and so was looking to cause verifiably large nuclear explosions. North Korea can't make much in the way of enriched uranium, so sub-kiloton weapons are likely the only way to get into the nuclear weapons club while having more than just one single missile.
Quote from: http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/725836.html
Seul decided to reinforce considerably its military arsenal in the Yellow Sea, to confront any additional attacks North Korea might do, announced this thursday the Presidential Office.
Its on?
Naw. South Korea would like to eventually unify the country without bringing total war to the north. They're always going to be open to peaceful means. This is just a message "uh, yeah, you're really pushing it now".
Fission? Meh. Even if it does reach somewhere, it's only on the scale of Hiroshima et Nagasaki. Bad, yeah, but not so bad as a hydrogen fusion bomb, and given the missle tech it won't even hit the intended target. Then everyone in the region will direct nukes AT N. Korea. Thus ending N. Korea.
Chance of this going nuclear >0.05
Now, are we going to continue to flap our hands about the most unlikely of scenarios, or can we go back to discussing what is actually happening?
Russia's foreign minister estimates a high risk of escalation.
It sounds like we can't sanction NK more than we already are. So what's next?
Just trying to get a handle on this. This seems like part of a larger pattern for NK, but I'm a little confused about motives.
ETA: Peter Beck:
"I don't think the North would seek war by intention, but war by accident, something spiralling out of control, has always been my fear."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/8161433/Artillery-fire-heard-near-South-Korea-island.html
Quote6:53AM GMT 26 Nov 2010
South Korea's military said two explosions were heard on Friday and it was checking the source of the sounds.
The two blasts were heard off Yeonpyeong island near the disputed border in the Yellow Sea, a Joint Chiefs of Staff spokesman told AFP.
"We're checking the origin of the sounds," he said.
North Korea is claiming South Korea struck first.
Any such claim should be treated with suspicion, of course, but there was a training exercise taking place very close to the DMZ, and it's not like there aren't crazies in the South Korean military either, so it's not an entirely unlikely claim, just one which cannot at all be verified.
I agree with Beck, incidentally. North Korea requires external agitation, to keep the regime in power. At the same time, too much hostility would result in a terrible war, which North Korea would eventually lose. Therefore, they are performing a tight-rope act here. Ironically, the main problem may end up being public opinion in South Korea. If it sours too much against North Korea, no matter how small the provocation, a government which refuses to engage North Korea militarily may fall...and then we enter the wonderful world of the Security Dilemma and tit-for-tat violence.
On the other hand, most South Koreans should probably be aware that their population is concentrated very close to the North Korean border, well within Scud range, and packed into tight, high rise apartment complexes housing thousands of citizens.
Wallerstein thought (4 months ago) everyone is playing a dangerous game of chicken:
Quote from: http://fbc.binghamton.edu/282en.htmCommentary No. 282, June 1, 2010
Iran and North Korea Again: The Perils of Brinkmanship"
The United States has been clamoring for almost two decades that it is determined to prevent Iran and North Korea from becoming nuclear powers. In-between more urgent issues, the U.S. government regularly reasserts the importance of this objective. Since both Iran and North Korea are clearly unwilling to cede to these periodically-reasserted U.S. demands, the United States constantly makes threats of further action of some sort.
After all this time, should we take this seriously? What has been going on is best summarized as brinkmanship, sometimes called a "game of chicken." Each time the game is replayed, it is always a question of who will blink first, and call off the implied ultimate escalation into warfare. Usually the United States plays this game with Iran and North Korea one at a time. Right now, it is playing it with both simultaneously. On the one hand, the simultaneity makes it more difficult to believe the seriousness of U.S. intent. On the other hand, it makes the game more perilous.
What are the current stories? In the case of Iran, the United States has been trying for some months now to obtain from the U.N. Security Council a new resolution imposing further sanctions on Iran for refusing the Security Council's resolution demanding that Iran suspend the enrichment of uranium. To get such a further resolution, the United States has been negotiating with Russia and China for their support. At the moment, these two countries seem to have agreed to support a resolution, but one weaker than the one the United States wants, and in return for diverse concessions on other issues.
The United States has assumed up to now that once it got the support of Russia and China, it would be able to get a unanimous resolution from the Security Council. Suddenly, two of the non-permanent members - Brazil and Turkey - entered the picture and engaged in very public diplomacy on this issue. Their leaders arranged with Iran to swap about half its low enriched uranium for nuclear fuel. Brazil, Turkey, and Iran argued that this deal goes a long way towards meeting U.S. demands. The United States does not agree at all and has said it will proceed with pushing for its resolution in the Security Council.
The United States does not know how to deal with the Brazilian/Turkish entry into the public game. They are both supposed to be friendly countries. They are both supposed to be junior nations who should leave such matters to the permanent members of the Security Council. It seems the United States may even have endorsed their initiative on the assumption it would fail and the U.S. argument would be fortified. This didn't happen. Brazil and Turkey succeeded. At least they think so. And they don't intend to be treated as junior nations who have to wait on their elders. They actually think that the United States should hail their agreement with Iran as a success and withdraw the resolution.
In the meantime, all eyes are on Korea. There, on March 26, a South Korean warship sank. At first, the South Koreans said they thought it was an accident. But then, two months later, which is a suspiciously long time, they announced they have proof that a North Korean submarine sank the ship with a torpedo. Some South Korean analysts suggest that the ship, which was engaged in a joint military exercise with the United States, was actually sunk in error by a U.S. submarine. This suggestion has been ignored by the world press, which rather is debating the motives of North Korea for doing this. Hillary Clinton says she can't understand why they would do such a thing.
Whatever the case, South Korea has broken its existing ties with North Korea, which has reciprocated. South Korea's present conservative government has now scuttled whatever remained of the previous president's "sunshine policy" toward North Korea. The United States wants a Security Council resolution. North Korea says that, if one is passed, they will withdraw from cooperation with international inspections of their nuclear facilities.
So, we're into high-level brinkmanship. And the world's markets reflect extreme nervousness. What will happen now? Obviously, everyone is playing to their home audience. The U.S. government wants to show the U.S. Congress that it is "doing something" serious. So does the South Korean government. So do the Iranian and North Korean governments. And so, no doubt, do the Brazilian and Turkish governments.
Who will blink first? I don't believe any of the front-line nations actually wants a war. There is too much to lose for each of them. The real decison however lies with none of these actors but with the Chinese government. China is calling the shots. What kind of a resolution will the Chinese support now in either of the two cases? China obviously wants very much for everyone to calm down, and to keep calm. The problem is that brinkmanship can be a dangerous game when the world - its geopolitics and its economy - is so chaotic and volatile. Accidents could happen. Some military officer somewhere, with his hand on the trigger, could make a mistake - either accidentally or deliberately.
We are living in interesting times.
by Immanuel Wallerstein
[Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein, distributed by Agence Global. For rights and permissions, including translations and posting to non-commercial sites, and contact: rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.336.286.6606. Permission is granted to download, forward electronically, or e-mail to others, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To contact author, write: immanuel.wallerstein@yale.edu.
These commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be reflections on the contemporary world scene, as seen from the perspective not of the immediate headlines but of the long term.]
In what could be a crucial development, state-owned newspapers in China have blamed North Korea for this week's attack; one even editorialized that North Korea could be a country without a future.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/27/3078142.htm
I take this as a sign that China does not approve.
Not surprising. China doesn't want North Korea to collapse, either through war or internal stupidity. It's not exactly like they're ideological BFF, China has a plan for North Korea, which does not involve hundreds and thousands of its citizens fleeing across the border into China, or everything north of the DMZ being burnt to a crisp.
Therefore China is the closest thing North Korea has now to a sense of national best interest.