Trump vs Kim-Jong Un: War or Bluster?

[Monty]

Very effective against surface forces, not so much against hardened targets, useless against underground hardened targets.

A GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) would probably do the job and can be delivered by B-2 Spirit stealth bombers.

 

[najaB]

A GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) would probably do the job and can be delivered by B-2 Spirit stealth bombers.

Possibly.

 

[Jonny]

Meanwhile, China has been making trade moves against North Korea. The Kim regime is becoming increasingly isolated, even without regard to America.

 

[najaB]

The Kim regime is becoming increasingly isolated, even without regard to America.

This is where the world needs to be very careful - back a bear into a corner and you're gonna get some bother.

 

[BestWestern]

Is Iran Kimmy's new best friend, or are they just choosing their moment to make Trump's headache worse?!

 

[najaB]

And the rhetoric gets turned up to 11....

North Korea accuses US of declaring war, says it has right to shoot down American bombers

North Korea accuses US of declaring war, says it has right to shoot down American bombers
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

 

[Hornet]

Kim-Jong Un reminds me of a genocidal Violet Elizabeth Bott.

 

[gg1]

The way to settle this is simple.

• Trump and Kim Jong Un meet in a neutral location.
• An impartial judge arrives equipped with a ruler.
• Measurements are taken.
• Judge announces who is the biggest.

 

[Cowley]

The way to settle this is simple.

• Trump and Kim Jong Un meet in a neutral location.
• An impartial judge arrives equipped with a ruler.
• Measurements are taken.
• Judge announces who is the biggest.

Micrometer?

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Is Iran Kimmy's new best friend, or are they just choosing their moment to make Trump's headache worse?!

No doubt just fed up with Trump's bluster about them, accusing them of breaking the Nuclear Treaty, when all other countries and US officials all confirm that Iran is sticking to the treaty.

Plus the awareness that Trump is very pro-Saudi because of his business dealings there, so is doing their bidding by insulting Iran.

 

[DarloRich]

I have been think about this recently and have come across some interesting articles on a web site called Real Clear Defense. It is right leaning but does give room to views from across the spectrum

What is clear is that the USA will not allow themselves to be targeted by a Korean ICBM. Something will be done. I hope that will be some form of diplomatic compromise but I feel that war is a possibility. The concern with Trump ( which may not have existed with previous incumbents) is which button he decides to press if that point is reached. The one for conventional bombers or the big red one..............

And for gods sake lets not give up Trident. We might need it.

 

[TheNewNo2]

If we have to use Trident we're already dead, may as well save the money and enjoy life a bit more while we can.

 

[Groningen]

It is a little bit quiet at the warzone.

 

[Hornet]

It is a little bit quiet at the warzone.

The Chinese have probably had a quiet word in Kim's shell like.

 

[Bromley boy]

I have been think about this recently and have come across some interesting articles on a web site called Real Clear Defense. It is right leaning but does give room to views from across the spectrum

What is clear is that the USA will not allow themselves to be targeted by a Korean ICBM. Something will be done. I hope that will be some form of diplomatic compromise but I feel that war is a possibility. The concern with Trump ( which may not have existed with previous incumbents) is which button he decides to press if that point is reached. The one for conventional bombers or the big red one..............

And for gods sake lets not give up Trident. We might need it.

I fully agree with all of the above.

I'm not sure Trump's latest Twitter-based intervention of continuing to throw childish insults at Kim while simultaneously undermining his own Secretary of State's attempts at negotiation are helping matters.

International diplomacy being (badlly) conducted in 140 character soundbites. You couldn't make it up. Maybe now that the character limit has increased to 280 more progress will be made. :cry:

 

[najaB]

Maybe now that the character limit has increased to 280 more progress will be made. :cry:

Sadly I think it will mean twice the damage per tweet.

 

[fowler9]

I have been think about this recently and have come across some interesting articles on a web site called Real Clear Defense. It is right leaning but does give room to views from across the spectrum

What is clear is that the USA will not allow themselves to be targeted by a Korean ICBM. Something will be done. I hope that will be some form of diplomatic compromise but I feel that war is a possibility. The concern with Trump ( which may not have existed with previous incumbents) is which button he decides to press if that point is reached. The one for conventional bombers or the big red one..............

And for gods sake lets not give up Trident. We might need it.

We might need Trident? Why? Kim Jong Un isn't going to nuke the UK and even if he decides it is a good idea Trident won't stop it. We could spend the Trident money on properly fitting out our armed forces for what they do and perhaps two proper aircraft carriers with Super Hornets instead of a couple of dozen F-35's that don't work anyway.

 

[HSTEd]

We might need Trident? Why? Kim Jong Un isn't going to nuke the UK and even if he decides it is a good idea Trident won't stop it. We could spend the Trident money on properly fitting out our armed forces for what they do and perhaps two proper aircraft carriers with Super Hornets instead of a couple of dozen F-35's that don't work anyway.

And how would these super hornets or aircraft carrier withstand a low yield battlefield nuclear weapon?
Conventional forces always lose to a nuclear armed force that is willing to use nuclear weapons.

And the primary purpose of the British Armed forces is the Defence of the Realm.
They do it day in, day out, they only relatively rarely get involved in foreign expeditions - and even then they do not tend to consume a large fraction of their total strength.

 

[fowler9]

And how would these super hornets or aircraft carrier withstand a low yield battlefield nuclear weapon?
Conventional forces always lose to a nuclear armed force that is willing to use nuclear weapons.

And the primary purpose of the British Armed forces is the Defence of the Realm.
They do it day in, day out, they only relatively rarely get involved in foreign expeditions - and even then they do not tend to consume a large fraction of their total strength.

I work with our armed forces and they actually get deployed a lot more than you would think, not always to combat of course but they are deployed. There really isn't much slack in the system. As for Trident, if you use it then that is it. Game over (Actually the name of an album by the band Nuclear Assault, ha ha). .

 

[HSTEd]

I work with our armed forces and they actually get deployed a lot more than you would think, not always to combat of course but they are deployed. There really isn't much slack in the system. As for Trident, if you use it then that is it. Game over (Actually the name of an album by the band Nuclear Assault, ha ha). .

Deployments outside of British soil are rather rarer though (for example deployments often consist of going to places like Akrotiri or Mount Pleasant).

The use of a small number of nuclear weapons is not going to end the world - ending the world is actually rather hard unless most of the nuclear powers conspire to do so.
In actual nuclear combat a large fraction of the weapons deployed would never actually detonate since they would be destroyed before they could do so or would simply fail from various mechanical and accidental causes.

It is not even clear whether a full scale nuclear war could actually completely collapse civilisation at this point.

 

[TheNewNo2]

The use of a small number of nuclear weapons is not going to end the world - ending the world is actually rather hard unless most of the nuclear powers conspire to do so.
In actual nuclear combat a large fraction of the weapons deployed would never actually detonate since they would be destroyed before they could do so or would simply fail from various mechanical and accidental causes.

It is not even clear whether a full scale nuclear war could actually completely collapse civilisation at this point.

That's an optimistic assessment. The problem with nuclear war is that it's fairly hard to work out how one could have a "limited" one. There's far too much room for miscalculation and overreaction leading to the end of civilisation. Just like World War One was ignited by the assassination of one person, sometimes all you need is a spark to light the massive bonfire we're standing on.

 

[HSTEd]

That's an optimistic assessment. The problem with nuclear war is that it's fairly hard to work out how one could have a "limited" one. There's far too much room for miscalculation and overreaction leading to the end of civilisation. Just like World War One was ignited by the assassination of one person, sometimes all you need is a spark to light the massive bonfire we're standing on.

For example, the majority of the submarine missile forces in the world would not actually be used in the first few days of the war.
Whilst a small number would be expended in an attempt to suppress air defences, the majority would be hidden in whatever bodies of water are available and convenient as a last ditch retaliatory weapon - or to maintain detterance after the war.

Whilst the enemy submarine force survives you are not going to go full-blown countervalue (attacking cities that do not contain major military infrastructure) because you know to an absolute certainty that they will respond in kind.
The majority of nuclear defence installations are actually in the middle of nowhere - and the vast majority of warheads that are actually detonated (excluding fuse failures, fizzles, weapons being caught on the ground, launcher failures and such) would be detonated in what is best described as the middle of nowhere.
Indeed political infrastructure is often projected to be ignored during the early stages of an exchange, because you need someone alive to negotiate with if you want to avoid the surviving command infrastructure assuming all is lost and thus attempting to get every missile out of the ground right now.

Meanwhile bomber and missile forces, especially those attacking Russia, would suffer heavily from the logic of air defence - sacrifice the few to save the many.
Even the vaunted Stealth Bomber can be eliminated by detection by HF radars, followed by a pattern attack with nuclear tipped surface to air missiles - overpressure will kill the bomber even though the fix is only accurate to a couple of miles.

So whilst there would be a large number of bursts, many would be of surprisingly low yield and in places which are not particularily heavily populated.

Montana would get hit hard, but there are not many people around to notice.

 

[fowler9]

Deployments outside of British soil are rather rarer though (for example deployments often consist of going to places like Akrotiri or Mount Pleasant).

The use of a small number of nuclear weapons is not going to end the world - ending the world is actually rather hard unless most of the nuclear powers conspire to do so.
In actual nuclear combat a large fraction of the weapons deployed would never actually detonate since they would be destroyed before they could do so or would simply fail from various mechanical and accidental causes.

It is not even clear whether a full scale nuclear war could actually completely collapse civilisation at this point.

It isn't just Mount Pleasant and Akrotiri and other deployments are not quite as rare as you seem to think. We have loads in the Baltics at the moment and also Africa. The Navy is spread very thinly across the globe. I also think you have a very optimistic view of what would result in anyone using nuclear weapons.

 

[najaB]

We have loads in the Baltics at the moment and also Africa. The Navy is spread very thinly across the globe.

There's a fair sized deployment to the Caribbean at the moment involved in disaster relief.

I also think you have a very optimistic view of what would result in anyone using nuclear weapons.

I agree. There's a reason that the Soviets and Americans stopped talking about 'limited nuclear war' as the Cold War developed and instead developed MAD as the strategy of choice.

 

[fowler9]

There's a fair sized deployment to the Caribbean at the moment involved in disaster relief.

Indeed, a mate of mine is a motorman in the RFA (So actually a civilian) and they are desperate for crew. He has suggested I join (They must be desperate). The Royal Navy is the same. Trident is political willy waving. If it ever gets used we are all dead and it hasn't stopped any of the conflicts we have been involved in.

 

[fowler9]

There's a fair sized deployment to the Caribbean at the moment involved in disaster relief.

There is normally something like a Frigate or a Destroyer out there with an RFA boat anyway busting drug runners.

 

[najaB]

There is normally something like a Frigate or a Destroyer out there with an RFA boat anyway busting drug runners.

Indeed there is. I grew up in Barbados and we're used to the sailors getting leave and trying to drink the local bars dry (there's actually a plaque in The Ship Inn commemorating the occasion when they came one crate of beer away from achieving it!)

 

[fowler9]

Indeed there is. I grew up in Barbados and we're used to the sailors getting leave and trying to drink the local bars dry (there's actually a plaque in The Ship Inn commemorating the occasion when they came one crate of beer away from achieving it!)

I bet my mate Barry was there on the Wave Knight. Ha ha.

 

[AM9]

For example, the majority of the submarine missile forces in the world would not actually be used in the first few days of the war.
Whilst a small number would be expended in an attempt to suppress air defences, the majority would be hidden in whatever bodies of water are available and convenient as a last ditch retaliatory weapon - or to maintain detterance after the war.

Whilst the enemy submarine force survives you are not going to go full-blown countervalue (attacking cities that do not contain major military infrastructure) because you know to an absolute certainty that they will respond in kind.
The majority of nuclear defence installations are actually in the middle of nowhere - and the vast majority of warheads that are actually detonated (excluding fuse failures, fizzles, weapons being caught on the ground, launcher failures and such) would be detonated in what is best described as the middle of nowhere.
Indeed political infrastructure is often projected to be ignored during the early stages of an exchange, because you need someone alive to negotiate with if you want to avoid the surviving command infrastructure assuming all is lost and thus attempting to get every missile out of the ground right now.

Meanwhile bomber and missile forces, especially those attacking Russia, would suffer heavily from the logic of air defence - sacrifice the few to save the many.
Even the vaunted Stealth Bomber can be eliminated by detection by HF radars, followed by a pattern attack with nuclear tipped surface to air missiles - overpressure will kill the bomber even though the fix is only accurate to a couple of miles.

So whilst there would be a large number of bursts, many would be of surprisingly low yield and in places which are not particularily heavily populated.

Montana would get hit hard, but there are not many people around to notice.

From where did all these assumptions come?

 

[HSTEd]

From where did all these assumptions come?

Reading a ridiculous numbers of declassified studies on the strategy of nuclear war.

Like the insane estimation that by the 90s the Soviet ICBM force would be able to kill a significant number of missile submarines by pattern attacking the ocean.
Obviously the arms limitation treaties of the 70s onwards put a stop to that insanity.