Mag 4.9 earthquake in North Korea possible nuclear test

[Stardrifter_WA]

IF, North Korea does create a nuclear weapon, how will they deploy it and with what accuracy, and could they get it past the missile defence shields on the US coast? And yes, I do realise that these defence shields are not totally effective, however, if a strike was imminent, I am sure a lot of these missiles would be deployed, with a chance of one destroying the incoming nuke, thus mitigating the strike. Just look at the 'Iron Dome' defence shield that covers Israel.

Also, the US has 'tactical' nuclear weapons, as opposed to the 'strategic' nuclear weapons that North Korea is trying to develop, assuming that they are not as advanced in weapon design. A 'tactical' nuclear weapon is designed to strike military targets with high precision and are probably a low yield device, thus minimising collateral damage. And, I doubt NK have the necessary technological sophistication required to develop high precision guidance systems.

If there was a real and credible threat of an imminent strike from NK with a 'strategic' weapon, which is designed to destroy large areas, the US would have no hesitation in deploying a 'tactical' nuke, or even a normal cruise missile, to destroy the NK missile, before it even launched. And NK would know this, and that would be a deterrent, as they would not be able to actually carry out the threat with any real chance of succeeding. China would also know this and would probably step in to prevent any real escalation of hostilities on the Korean Peninsular.

The US has sophisticated surveillance systems which North Korea do not have, so are in a better position to know what NK is doing.

So, I doubt NK can really do anything meaningful to carry out such a threat anyway. And, as I said earlier, I ain't worried about it and won't lose any sleep over it.

Cheers Peter

[Astro_Bot]

Hi Peter. You seem to be a bit off in the facts ... I'll try not re-hash what Brendon has already covered; apologies if I do.

Let me first say for the record that I'm not trying to promote the threat from NK as the world's #1 problem - I thought I was done with this thread at post #2 - but the relatively uninformed views that have been posted since are keeping me involved.

Originally Posted by Stardrifter_WA

IF, North Korea does create a nuclear weapon

They have - they've conducted three successful tests, the most recent being for a miniaturised weapon, which, though not an operational warhead, is a big step closer to that goal. No-one (in the business of watching NK) seriously doubts that their goal is operational warheads.

how will they deploy it and with what accuracy,

They are developing and continue to develop ballistic missiles and periodically conduct test firings, the most recent being over Japan that allegedly put a satellite in orbit. Again, no-one (in the business of watching NK) doubts that their goal is an operational class of ballistic missiles. FYI: Taepodong-2 has a range believed to be >6,000km and further developments are in progress.

and could they get it past the missile defence shields on the US coast? And yes, I do realise that these defence shields are not totally effective,

The problem of intercepting ballistic missiles is extremely challenging. The extreme speed and (largely) exo-atmospheric flight path makes detecting, tracking and intercepting these targets a monumental task. Defence hinges on two of four stages. (1) Boost phase, when the rocket motor is burning and the target is hot and easily "seen". Unfortunately, this is well within adversary territory and lasts only a few minutes - flight time of the interceptor to the target may well be longer than the boost phase itself and chances are the ballistic missile will be above the maximum ceiling of the interceptor by the time it gets there. Still, there are efforts to try this - the Air Borne Laser being the most prominent, but after 17 years, that is still just "testing". (2) Ascent phase, when the missile gains high altitude and becomes exo-atmospheric - only initial R&D is going on here. (3) Mid-course phase, which is exo-atmospheric, when one must detect a cold target against cold space at altitudes of >>120km and hit it at >20,000 km/h with pinpoint accuracy with the window of opportunity due to interceptor downrange/crossrange overlap being very small. Very hard! The US Navy has deployed a system - it's effectiveness is unverified, though they claim to have conducted successful tests. The US Army is developing a system under the auspices of the Missile Defense Agency - it is still in a testing stage. I must emphasise the difficulty of hitting an unknown/unannounced target vs a rehearsed test target - it really is a hard thing to do. (4) Re-entry/terminal phase, when the target is within the range of land-based defence missiles, is very, very hard - the target aspect is smallest and the speed highest - this isn't considered credible for intercontinental ballistic missiles (of the type NK is developing), but against slower and shorter range missiles (speed:range is roughly proportional), it has some chance of success, and this is where those defences are concentrated.

Add to that: from 1972-2002, the ABM treaty forbade anti-ballistic missile defence developments. The US withdrew in 2002 due to "rogue state" ballistic missile developments from the likes of NK and Iran. Consequently, ABM developments are two decades behind ballistic missile developments.

however, if a strike was imminent, I am sure a lot of these missiles would be deployed, with a chance of one destroying the incoming nuke, thus mitigating the strike. Just look at the 'Iron Dome' defence shield that covers Israel.

See above. Terminal defence missiles are mostly ineffective against the class of weapon NK is developing. Even short range ballistic missiles like Scuds used by Iraq were relatively impervious to short range interceptors (Patriot batteries, though used, had little success).

Also, the US has 'tactical' nuclear weapons, as opposed to the 'strategic' nuclear weapons that North Korea is trying to develop, assuming that they are not as advanced in weapon design. A 'tactical' nuclear weapon is designed to strike military targets with high precision and are probably a low yield device, thus minimising collateral damage. And, I doubt NK have the necessary technological sophistication required to develop high precision guidance systems.

You're doubts are unfounded. They can guide a satellite to orbit (regardless of whether the satellite works) = they can put a ballistic missile on target. It's the same problem simply with different boundary conditions. Your argument about tactical vs strategic is non-sensical. All nuclear weapon delivery systems are designed to strike with very high precision. "Low precision" hasn't been a problem since the 60s era of weapons, all of which were withdrawn long ago. NK's developments show no signs of being "low precision". Tactical nukes are more readily described as those under the command of a battlefield commander delivered by non-ballistic missile means. AFAIK, the USA no longer deploys tactical nukes and I would guess that, since the demise of the Soviet Union, the Russians don't either. Hollywood, however, has yet to catch up - they seem to want to call any warhead <100kT a "tactical" nuke.

IIRC, NK has been a net exporter of ballistic missile and nuclear technology - they're more advanced in that area than most other countries, including Australia. (Obviously, there are some countries more advanced, such as USA, Russia and China).

One particular problem is who NK might sell to next - because there remains the distinct possibility of a terrorist organisation obtaining a "backpack" nuke - that's another avenue of concern from successful weapon miniaturisation.

If there was a real and credible threat of an imminent strike from NK with a 'strategic' weapon, which is designed to destroy large areas, the US would have no hesitation in deploying a 'tactical' nuke, or even a normal cruise missile, to destroy the NK missile, before it even launched. And NK would know this, and that would be a deterrent, as they would not be able to actually carry out the threat with any real chance of succeeding. China would also know this and would probably step in to prevent any real escalation of hostilities on the Korean Peninsular.

NK hasn't responded (in a manner the international community considers acceptable) to any deterrent so far, and shows no signs of doing so. Also, see below.

The US has sophisticated surveillance systems which North Korea do not have, so are in a better position to know what NK is doing.

NK doesn't need surveillance - cities don't move. Even "early warning systems" of the kind that have been around since the 60s wouldn't provide meaningful warning of a pre-emptive launch by NK against Japan or even the USA. The entire Cold War nuke deterrent hinged around not knowing if/when the Soviets would launch. That's the nature of ballistic missiles: maybe a satellite picks up a thermal bloom that could be a launch, and maybe an radar system picks up the ascent and some of the mid-course trajectory, but ICBM flight time is <30 minutes, and that's bugger all time to do anything, hence the decades-long non-reliance on ABMs and the policy of MAD. I know systems are in development, but again, it's a very hard problem - like trying to hit a tiny supersonic jet with a .22 rifle bullet - don't hold your breath.

So, I doubt NK can really do anything meaningful to carry out such a threat anyway. And, as I said earlier, I ain't worried about it and won't lose any sleep over it.

Actually, i'm not losing sleep either ... over this, anyway ... my insomnia is caused by other things. But, keep in mind that there's been a saying in the "business" for a long time: "I'm more terrified of the guy with one nuke than the guy with a thousand".

And after all that .... Good night and good luck.

[Stardrifter_WA]

Originally Posted by Astro_Bot

Hi Peter. You seem to be a bit off in the facts ... I'll try not re-hash what Brendon has already covered; apologies if I do.

Hi Astro,

I am well aware of the facts and was just expressing 'my' opinion, based on 'my ' analysis of the facts, just as you have.

Nor do I stand by 'my' analysis either, as I do not and would never profess to be an 'analysist' or an expert in International Relations.

Fortunately in our democratic society we can express an 'opinion' without fear of reprisals. I am always willing to consider other peoples opinions, and will always defend 'your' right to your opinions, even if I do not necessarily agree with them.

Cheers Peter

[Astro_Bot]

Originally Posted by Stardrifter_WA

I am well aware of the facts and was just expressing 'my' opinion, based on 'my ' analysis of the facts, just as you have.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but you really were off in the facts.

[Colin_Fraser]

Originally Posted by Stardrifter_WA

Fortunately in our democratic society we can express an 'opinion' without fear of reprisals.

Only if your opinion is the same as the "experts" who seem to know everything. If it's different, you are wrong

[Stardrifter_WA]

Originally Posted by Astro_Bot

Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but you really were off in the facts.

Originally Posted by Astro_Bot

Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but you really were off in the facts.

Hi Astro,

Clearly, I was off on my facts, however, I reiterate it was only an opinion and if I thought that this was a serious debate, I would have done thorough research before commenting. I was merely adding an alternative to other comments.

Considering some of the information that I have read recently, particular out of Israel, I could argue that some of your facts are not entirely correct either, but, as I stated earlier, I am definitely no expert and can only go by what I read.

However, you have clearly and succinctly made your point with which I concede defeat and bow to your superior intellect.

I have learned my lesson and will not make any further general comments on IIS in the future, unless I thoroughly check my facts first.

I certainly didn't expect to have my comments taken so seriously in the first place, otherwise I would have done my research.

I am sorry if you took my comments so seriously and thank you for taking the time to give your input.

Cheers Peter

[Astro_Bot]

It wasn't personal, Peter. I tend to get a bit serious where nukes are concerned, especially being ex-military and having worked in related areas. (Note to self: inject more humour and use smilies).

[wasyoungonce (Brendan)]

Originally Posted by Stardrifter_WA

....I have learned my lesson and will not make any further general comments on IIS in the future, unless I thoroughly check my facts first.
..............
Cheers Peter

Peter you are pretty much allowed to say what you want, its the nature of the internet to dump upon those who hold belief's...and I hope I haven't come across as bullish. I apologise if I have.

I am certainly scared of the nuclear spectre..in fact anything Military iconflict. I have seen the results of 1000lb bombs and it scares the be-jebus out of me to think of the damage a nuc can cause.

Of course....the point about Israel and Nuclear weapons, especially tactical nucs' like neutron tactical bombs and no one appears to raise an eyebrow about this is not lost on me.

[entity62]

The US ABM Defense systems seem too be going ok to me. article from 3 days ago http://www.mda.mil/news/13news0002.html

The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and U.S. Navy sailors aboard the USS LAKE ERIE (CG 70) successfully conducted a flight test of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system, resulting in the intercept of a medium-range ballistic missile target over the Pacific Ocean by a Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IA guided missile.

At 11:10 p.m. HST (4:10 a.m. EST) a unitary medium-range ballistic missile target was launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility, on Kauai, Hawaii. The target flew northwest towards a broad ocean area of the Pacific Ocean.

The in-orbit Space Tracking and Surveillance System-Demonstrators (STSS-D) detected and tracked the target, and forwarded track data to the USS LAKE ERIE. The ship, equipped with the second-generation Aegis BMD weapon system, used Launch on Remote doctrine to engage the target.

The ship developed a fire control solution from the STSS-D track and launched the SM-3 Block IA guided missile approximately five minutes after target launch. The SM-3 maneuvered to a point in space and released its kinetic warhead. The kinetic warhead acquired the target reentry vehicle, diverted into its path, and, using only the force of a direct impact, engaged and destroyed the target.

Initial indications are that all components performed as designed. Program officials will assess and evaluate system performance based upon telemetry and other data obtained during the test.

Today’s event, designated Flight Test Standard Missile-20 (FTM-20), was a demonstration of the ability of space-based assets to provide mid-course fire control quality data to an Aegis BMD ship, extending the battlespace, providing the ability for longer range intercepts and defense of larger areas.

FTM-20 is the 24th successful intercept in 30 flight test attempts for the Aegis BMD program since flight testing began in 2002. Across all Ballistic Missile Defense System programs, this is the 58th successful hit-to-kill intercept in 73 flight tests since 2001.

Aegis BMD is the sea-based component of the MDA’s Ballistic Missile Defense System. The Aegis BMD engagement capability defeats short- to intermediate-range, unitary and separating, midcourse-phase ballistic missile threats with the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3), as well as short-range ballistic missiles in the terminal phase with the SM-2 Block IV missile. The MDA and the U.S. Navy cooperatively manage the Aegis BMD program.

[Stardrifter_WA]

Originally Posted by wasyoungonce

Peter you are pretty much allowed to say what you want, its the nature of the internet to dump upon those who hold belief's...and I hope I haven't come across as bullish. I apologise if I have.

Not at all Brendan. all ok.

[Astro_Bot]

{I started this before seeing Brendan's post, but what the heck ...}

I often think about the relationship between our elected representatives and the general public. Recently, I reflected on the vast array of opinions on many topics that one might hear over a beer in every pub in the land. I think this thread is an example of the diversity of views that span the nation.

Democracy is a great thing, and freedom of expression, IMHO, is its greatest facet. I wouldn't want to live in a place where people weren't free to express a view, even if contrary facts later come to light.

Originally Posted by Voltaire

I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Two things come to mind, though possibly at a tangent to this thead: firstly, we're all human and as humans we inject ego into arguments and feelings get hurt (and I'm as guilty as the next person in that regard - been there, done that); and, secondly, that given the enormous diversity of views on any topic, is it any wonder that our leaders ignore much of what people say? That is, there will always be a sizeable proportion of the population whose opinions will be sidelined, and who will undoubtedly feel hard done by. It's unavoidable.

But, still, I wouldn't change freedom of expression for anything.

[wasyoungonce (Brendan)]

Originally Posted by entity62

...... The kinetic warhead acquired the target reentry vehicle, diverted into its path, and, using only the force of a direct impact, engaged and destroyed the target.
....

I worked and was in charge of with Pavetack and F18FLIR LTDR for many years ....I just don't know how they get that sort of targeting accuracy...damn it's difficult at those humongous velocities, must use a vast system of different sensor arrays.

Next warheads will be fitted with ECM to fool incoming targeting systems...just like ECM....ECCM....ECCCM ...and so on.