Wendell
United States
Yellow Springs
Ohio
flag msg tools
Si non potes reperire Berolini in tabula, ludens essetis non WIF.
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
A cheerful read.

Invalid tweet.
14 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xander Fulton
United States
Astoria
Oregon
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
wifwendell wrote:
A cheerful read.


Not any new information there, though. I guess the idea that North Korea may start a war with a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Busan is a "new" (-ish) thought, but not really a surprising idea.

But "millions of death in South Korea whether nuclear or not" as well as "largest US military action since Vietnam" were pretty well common knowledge things, I thought?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
XanderF wrote:
wifwendell wrote:
A cheerful read.


Not any new information there, though. I guess the idea that North Korea may start a war with a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Busan is a "new" (-ish) thought, but not really a surprising idea.

But "millions of death in South Korea whether nuclear or not" as well as "largest US military action since Vietnam" were pretty well common knowledge things, I thought?


Not according to the new messages coming out of the administration, talking merely about "bloody noses" and the like. Reinforcing the actual estimates seems to be a necessary exercise
5 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kumitedad wrote:
XanderF wrote:
wifwendell wrote:
A cheerful read.


Not any new information there, though. I guess the idea that North Korea may start a war with a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Busan is a "new" (-ish) thought, but not really a surprising idea.

But "millions of death in South Korea whether nuclear or not" as well as "largest US military action since Vietnam" were pretty well common knowledge things, I thought?


Not according to the new messages coming out of the administration, talking merely about "bloody noses" and the like. Reinforcing the actual estimates seems to be a necessary exercise


Less than 100 casualties was the estimate I read from a preemptive strike on NK.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Kearns
United States
Bloomington
Indiana
flag msg tools
Silence is golden.
badge
Your sea is so great and my boat is so small.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:
Kumitedad wrote:
XanderF wrote:
wifwendell wrote:
A cheerful read.


Not any new information there, though. I guess the idea that North Korea may start a war with a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Busan is a "new" (-ish) thought, but not really a surprising idea.

But "millions of death in South Korea whether nuclear or not" as well as "largest US military action since Vietnam" were pretty well common knowledge things, I thought?


Not according to the new messages coming out of the administration, talking merely about "bloody noses" and the like. Reinforcing the actual estimates seems to be a necessary exercise


Less than 100 casualties was the estimate I read from a preemptive strike on NK.

You're thinking of Puerto Rico.
11 
 Thumb up
1.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dkearns wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
Kumitedad wrote:
XanderF wrote:
wifwendell wrote:
A cheerful read.


Not any new information there, though. I guess the idea that North Korea may start a war with a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Busan is a "new" (-ish) thought, but not really a surprising idea.

But "millions of death in South Korea whether nuclear or not" as well as "largest US military action since Vietnam" were pretty well common knowledge things, I thought?


Not according to the new messages coming out of the administration, talking merely about "bloody noses" and the like. Reinforcing the actual estimates seems to be a necessary exercise


Less than 100 casualties was the estimate I read from a preemptive strike on NK.

You're thinking of Puerto Rico.


Lol. Their deaths are actually higher. I've seen estimates up to just over 1,000 (many not reported due to people dying from lack of power or medication being reported as natural causes).

But I posted on the 100 estimated deaths crazy trump administration plan about 5-6 weeks ago.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Walt
United States
Orange County
California
flag msg tools
Before terraforming Mars, Surviving Mars is required: Paradox Interactive; Steam.
badge
Please contact me about board gaming in Orange County.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kumitedad wrote:
Not according to the new messages coming out of the administration, talking merely about "bloody noses" and the like. Reinforcing the actual estimates seems to be a necessary exercise

"What this country needs is a short, victorious war to stem the tide of revolution."--Vyacheslav von Plehve in reference to the Russo-Japanese War of the Tsar to try to stem the Soviet revolution; von Plehve was killed by Soviet revolutionaries before the war was over.

"The belief in the possibility of a short decisive war appears to be one of the most ancient and dangerous of human illusions."--Robert Wilson Lynd

The worst case of the Vox article would be a good result.

It might well be much, much worse.

If we score by megadeaths, North Korea might well "win". The online nuclear bomb simulators are nice, but they're not accounting for two types of attack.

Let me emphasize that all this is published, available online, well known to Russia, and they taught NK, and one of them taught Iran.



1. The underwater harbor nuke.

You set off a nuke in a harbor and it inundates the port city with a "tsunami" of highly radioactive water. This is a far more lethal and destructive way to use a thermonuclear weapon (H-bomb). The method of delivery could be by suicide sub, super-torpedo, or dropped from a cargo ship.

NK has a fleet of cargo ships smuggling goods, such as weapons to Iran. They have flags of convenience from the usual ports, and cannot be easily distinguished from other common cargo ships. Like missile submarines, you have to catch them all. Probably NK has few H-bombs so far.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/07/asia/north-korea-ship-hao-fan...

For Russia, this is a "third strike" weapon. If a first strike comes in and destroys your ability to retaliate with nuclear missiles (second strike), the third strike comes into play.
http://www.newsweek.com/russia-develops-doomsday-nuclear-tor...



2. EMP enhanced nukes

"Air Force Gen. John E. Hyten, commander of U.S. Strategic Command, speaks on the joint perspective at the Air Force Association's Air, Space and Cyber Conference in National Harbor, Md., Sept. 20, 2017"

Skip to 41:30 or use this link: https://youtu.be/3m691gCJWME?t=41m30s



http://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/363326-how-one-...
How One North Korean Nuclear-Armed Satellite Could Cripple the US wrote:
During a 2008 exchange with Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) in testimony before Congress, [Congressional] EMP Commission Chairman William Robert Graham warned that Russia has super-EMP weapons, and apparently transferred that technology to North Korea:

BARTLETT: It is my understanding that, in interviewing some Russian generals…they told you that the Soviets had developed a "super-EMP" enhanced weapon that could produce 200 kilovolts per meter at the center?

GRAHAM: Yes, Mr. Bartlett. We engaged two senior Russian generals — who were also lecturers and authors from their general staff academy, who had written about advanced weapons…and they said a number of interesting things. One was that, in fact, the Russians had developed what they called the "Super-EMP" weapon that could generate fields in the range of 200 kilovolts per meter. And we had seen in other open literature that the Russians appeared to be using that figure as an upper bound for the kind of EMP that could be produced by nuclear weapons ... They also told us that there were Russian and other technologists, engineers and scientists, who were working with North Korea and receiving Western wages, they emphasized helping North Korea with the design of its nuclear weapons....

BARTLETT: This is about, what, four times higher than anything we ever built or tested to, in terms of EMP hardening?

GRAHAM: Yes….

BARTLETT: Which means that, even if you were some hundreds of miles away from that, that it would be somewhere in the range of 50 to 100 kilovolts per meter at the margins of our country, for instance?

GRAHAM: Yes. Over much of the margin, yes.

BARTLETT: So, we aren't sure that much of our military would still be operable after that robust laydown. Is that correct?...

GRAHAM: We designed both the missiles and their bases and the strategic communications systems during the Cold War to be able to survive and operate through EMP fields on the order of 50 kilovolts per meter, which was our concern at the time, before we realized that weapons could be designed that had larger EMP fields.

Atomic weapons (A-bombs) are far easier to design for EMP effects. While we may be skeptical of NK having many H-bombs, A-bombs they have. A great circle ballistic route from NK to NY or DC goes over the arctic, out of range of weapons in Alaska. Or a weapon could be launched from one of NK's false flag cargo ships, or an EMP-enhanced A-bomb could be in orbit now which would enhance surprise.

No one would be hurt immediately. The effects start with downing the eastern US electrical grid, possibly for months. No electricity means no water, gasoline, natural gas, etc. Worst case, every bit of modern electronics is toast: cell phones, cell phone towers, computers, backup power generators, cars, trucks..

What does this do for NK? At least, the US military's top logistical priority will not be to move stuff to Korea, but to save lives in the Northeast--transport food, clear roads full of dead cars (tow trucks are dead, too), etc. Some people estimate 90% casualties, but that seems too high to me (based on nothing but gut feel). We could glass NK, but Kim would probably survive, and I expect that's all he cares about.

Russia's designs, and therefore NK's, are designed to burn through military-level EMP protection. It's hard to know what protection a steel skyscraper will give, but if you can use your cell phone, you're probably vulnerable. So is Air Force One, Secret Service vehicles, etc. NK may be able to decapitate the US. (The "greedy" scenario where you try to EMP the whole US by nuking over the Midwest may not allow burning through military-level EMP protection at the fringes, like DC. It also requires an H-bomb. One of NK's EMP A-bombs is probably capable of taking down NY and DC.)

More articles:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterdetwiler/2014/07/31/protec...
https://fas.org/irp/congress/2008_hr/emp.pdf (PDF: non-.gov hosting of Congressional EMP report/hearings)
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32544.pdf (PDF: Congressional Research Service report)

To be sure, survivalists rant about EMP all the time. That doesn't mean it isn't a real effect.
8 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grand Admiral Thrawn
United States
New Jersey
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
And we're not even including the possible biological weapons that could be released in Japan.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leo Zappa
United States
Aliquippa
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Let's hope this war never happens. Maybe this would all come to pass if war would break out between NK and the US. I would, however, be a bit cautious with so-called military expert predictions. Many military experts predicted 10,000 American casualties in the first several weeks of Desert Storm.

http://articles.latimes.com/1990-09-05/news/mn-776_1_militar...

Actual US deaths in Desert Storm: 293.

Now, I don't say this lightly, and as someone who was a family escort officer for one of those 293, I can tell you that one is too many. I just suppose I get a bit annoyed with hyperbole, even when it's used to support an argument I agree with. I especially think you need to take "military experts'" opinion with a significant grain of salt.

Also, as for all of the doomsday weapons...while our military and political leaders need to take the threats seriously, we shouldn't get caught up in "Tom Clancy" syndrome, where every new, whiz-bang weapon system is expected to work exactly as planned 100% of the time. My time in the military taught me that some stuff worked most of the time, and some stuff worked less than that, and some stuff didn't really work at all. Maybe technology has become much more reliable in the 25 years since I was in uniform, but I kind of doubt it. Again, yes, the threat must be taken seriously, but in war, SNAFU and FUBAR generally reign supreme!
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
And another possibility is once the u.s. is weakened by an exchange with N.K., it practically begs China and Russia to attack with the justification that we attacked N.K.

I suppose our subs would be our deterrent. But even one additional EMP a few months after the first one seems logical to me.

It would cripple the recovery effort for much longer than the first strike, might block the harvest and impact the food supply, and destroy any repairs to manufacturing facilities.

They could claim it was a rogue element and execute some hapless nuclear tech or even find a nationalist willing to volunteer to "go rogue."
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Walt
United States
Orange County
California
flag msg tools
Before terraforming Mars, Surviving Mars is required: Paradox Interactive; Steam.
badge
Please contact me about board gaming in Orange County.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
desertfox2004 wrote:
Let's hope this war never happens. Maybe this would all come to pass if war would break out between NK and the US. I would, however, be a bit cautious with so-called military expert predictions. Many military experts predicted 10,000 American casualties in the first several weeks of Desert Storm.

Pre-war estimates of what's going to happen are notoriously unreliable; you're quite right. The Gulf War, as I'm sure you know, lasted only 100 hours; but depending on the Iraqi occupation force to crumble would not have been safe; I think this was also the first big use of modern body armor? The Iraqis were tougher against the existential threat posed by the Iraq War. The Vietnam War lasted far longer than predicted. The US Civil War was far more deadly than expected. And here we are still fighting the Taliban.

The problem with NK is that they fear we can execute a first strike that will destroy all their nukes in NK and possibly all their false flagged freighters--CIA, NSA, and NRO are tasked with gathering that kind of intel. Therefore, NK's "use it or lose it" threshold is very low.

A "bloody nose" attack is not only insanely dangerous, but confirms the necessity of NK's nuclear deterrence: what would the US do if we weren't worried about retaliation?
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xander Fulton
United States
Astoria
Oregon
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:
...I suppose our subs would be our deterrent...


Well...yeah, that is generally their entire role. IE., 'no matter how hard you hit us, you will die in the exchange'. They make for a convincing deterrent, that way. It does make the 'direct attack on the US' a somewhat less likely scenario, because retaliation is guaranteed and (almost certainly) total.

The bigger concern is more regional strikes, though - which the article does mention. IE., a "decoupling" attack. If NK strikes Busan and thus denies us any easy way to get reinforcements or supplies to the peninsula, then marches their army over the border with more nukes pointed at Seoul, Tokyo...and Seattle, San Francisco, and New York...

...well, with the major port destroyed, we'd have no way to land sufficient ground forces to wage that war, so...would we really "trade Seoul for San Francisco" in a war we couldn't 'win'?

That's (realistically) the bigger threat - if they use their nukes in a strictly-regional fashion and dare us to respond, knowing that if we did we'd only then face direct attacks on the continental US that they otherwise wouldn't engage in.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gone C. Profile
msg tools
Avatar
Tall_Walt wrote:
Quote:
BARTLETT: So, we aren't sure that much of our military would still be operable after that robust laydown. Is that correct?...

I do love the term robust laydown. If that were a metal band, I would listen to them.

XanderF wrote:
...well, with the major port destroyed, we'd have no way to land sufficient ground forces to wage that war, so...would we really "trade Seoul for San Francisco" in a war we couldn't 'win'?

Trump doesn't give a shit about San Francisco, and he definitely doesn't give a shit about Seoul. (Reminds me of this quote: "According to conventional bookkeeping, the Soviet diplomat remarked, the losses of the RAF were placed on one side of the balance sheet and the losses of the Luftwaffe on the other. The Soviet Union `placed both in one column and added them up.'") Any argument involving horrific civilian casualties in Asia might as well be the barking of dogs where Trump is concerned.
9 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Walt
United States
Orange County
California
flag msg tools
Before terraforming Mars, Surviving Mars is required: Paradox Interactive; Steam.
badge
Please contact me about board gaming in Orange County.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:
And another possibility is once the u.s. is weakened by an exchange with N.K., it practically begs China and Russia to attack with the justification that we attacked N.K.

I suppose our subs would be our deterrent. But even one additional EMP a few months after the first one seems logical to me.

It would cripple the recovery effort for much longer than the first strike, might block the harvest and impact the food supply, and destroy any repairs to manufacturing facilities.

They could claim it was a rogue element and execute some hapless nuclear tech or even find a nationalist willing to volunteer to "go rogue."

Two strikes pretty much kills the idea it was a non-state actor. But one EMP strike against the NE, especially from a freighter, sub, or satellite.... The satellite will be vapor, and any radar tracking it will be blinded; low Earth orbit is the right height, so no warning.

Airliners are protected against lightning, but against an EMP "robust laydown"? The planes can glide (maybe not if they're fly by wire) but at night the ground would be dark. Airport navigational aids would be down. Glide to what fate? And they can't glide very far.

Cars and trucks would not just lose their ignitions, but also power steering and power brakes. Street lights and signals would be out.

You can't just restart the power system because the huge transformers are trashed. Some are only available from overseas and take months to build.

Nuclear plants would probably lose their emergency cooling systems.


With Russia somewhat disorderly now, the big winner here is China, except for loss of a lot of the US market.


The problem with SSBN weapons is that they're too big. You drop one on Pyongyang and fallout is going to hit South Korea. Some of what they're talking about now is developing lower yield and bunker penetrating nukes, so the SSBNs would be able to strike smaller states, not just Russia and China. Right now, we have to go big or stay conventional.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G Rowls
msg tools
Professional Agitation Consultant... HTTP Error 418 I'm a Teapot!
Avatar
mbmb
6 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vic Lineal
Spain
Barcelona
flag msg tools
Nope. Nope nope nope nope.
Avatar
mb
And meanwhile, the top North Korean representative in the Korean winter games is engaging in very public diplomacy with South Korea and offering a dialogue line.

I sincerely hope it works despite external pressures for that diplomatic avenue to fail.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Foy
United States
Ellicott City
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
What I worry about is North Korea doing horrific damage to the South and the US backs down.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Pustilnik
United States
Bronx
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Tall_Walt wrote:


A "bloody nose" attack is not only insanely dangerous, but confirms the necessity of NK's nuclear deterrence: what would the US do if we weren't worried about retaliation?


North Korea has thirty nukes already, that is plenty of deterrence. If they stopped building more nukes and ICBM's the rest of the world would leave North Korea alone.

Kim could also try being a little less evil. If he would stop starving and torturing hundreds of thousands of his own people, maybe the world would distrust Kim a little less.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vic Lineal
Spain
Barcelona
flag msg tools
Nope. Nope nope nope nope.
Avatar
mb
MikePustilnik wrote:
Kim could also try being a little less evil. If he would stop starving and torturing hundreds of thousands of his own people, maybe the world would distrust Kim a little less.


The beauty of that argument is that it works for anybody.

Maybe if the US were a little less evil and into the habit of killing hundreds of thousands of people in invasions of countries all around the globe for economic objectives they would have to worry less about countries arming themselves with nuclear weapons to deter them.
3 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.