• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

North Korea's Military Capabilities

Zig,
What about artillery nuke shells.
That shouldn't be beyond NK as South Africa developed the G5 and G6 howitzers with nuclear shell capability back in the old days when sanctions and arms embargoes were at their peak.

It has been speculated that when the Vela project detected a nuclear blast down south, it was one of these shells that was being tested.

I suspect that one day the truth of this incident will be exposed.
 
I believe that South Africa sold quite a few of these howitzers to Saddam Hussein back in those days as well.

I wonder if they ever turned up after the occupation of Iraq.
 
I think I should define what I meant by "cakewalk". I think that it would be easy for SK+US forces to completely destroy NK's military. Their militaries are that much better. However, it is quite possible that NK would kill a bunch of civilians in wild artillery/missile launches. This, while tragic, wouldn't have much of an effect on military operations other than to strengthen the resolve to end NK as a state forever.

Sent from my Samsung Epic 4G using Tapatalk
 
Why do so many anti-war people keep accusing others of saying that? It was a lie when Bush's opponents did it over Iraq, it's a lie here in this thread, it's a lie any time you say it about someone who didn't actually say what you say they said. But in this case, we're all right here, where everybody can easily see what was actually said, so your lie won't fool anybody, so why bother to tell it?

There are clear pictures and, at least in the Sukhoi plane's case, video. That doesn't give every last detail there is to know, but American engineers can tell what a plane was designed for and what functions are to be expected from particular visible features by looking at the shapes, with an understanding of physics (and the design goals they had in mind themselves when they built the originals that Russia & China are trying to copy). These estimates of what to expect from foreign planes are based on that, not on their governments' claims.

They could consider the North's weapons pointed at them to be enough provocation to launch an attack on just those weapons, without invading the whole country. Of course, they'd have to hit as many of them as possible at once with as little warning time as possible for NK to see it coming... which is why the last time I speculated about this in this thread I said they might be waiting until they have F-35s or F-15SEs to launch the first salvos, especially against mobile launchers. After hitting the main thing NK has available to threaten SK's populace with at all, SK wouldn't need to press any further or send a single thing anywhere near any NK civilians. They could stop there and brace the border for a counter-invasion, which might not even come, since NK would know its losses in that strike hadn't been huge and a war would only increase its losses without bringing anything to gain because SK wasn't invading. It just depends on how much time SK thinks it would take to get all of the weapons and how many rounds NK could fire with the surviving ones in that time.


See theres the problem...their trying to copy. Its one thing to trot out a really cool looking aircraft and call it "stealth" but is it really? Stealth requires more than just the form of the aircraft but advanced composite design which I do not believe China or Russia have the capabilities of constructing at this point nor do they have the advanced avionics and software to fly the plane with confidence.
 
Zig,
What about artillery nuke shells.
That shouldn't be beyond NK as South Africa developed the G5 and G6 howitzers with nuclear shell capability back in the old days when sanctions and arms embargoes were at their peak.

I don't think that's true. Or more specifically, while South Africa might have developed howitzers capable of lobbing nuclear shells, I don't think they ever developed nuclear shells. Maybe someone else (France?) developed such shells for use with South African artillery (they exported), but I don't think South Africa did, or could. And I don't think North Korea can do so either.
 
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB190/index.htm

As far as 2 Vela detections 9 months apart being related to meteorites or natural occurrences is nonsense as the odds of this occurring were staggering.

Here is a quote from another document in the mid 80's.
No link as it is hard copy.

"Congress may succeed in shelving the problem of the 1979 test for another few years, but despite the refusal of the U.S. political monkeys to see, nuclear collaboration between Tel Aviv and Pretoria continues. A second test in December 1980 was reported in the same area, with another CIA sighting of South African ships nearby. A British authority on nuclear weapons, Dr. David Baker, said that the weapon fired in this test was probably a 155 mm nuclear shell fired from a special howitzer which the Israelis had helped the South Africans acquire."

The fact that there was collaboration with Israel means nothing.

If South Africa had access to these weapons in the 70's and 80's at the height of sanctions and embargoes, why is it deemed improbable that NK has access to this technology more than 2 decades later.:confused:
 
If South Africa had access to these weapons in the 70's and 80's at the height of sanctions and embargoes, why is it deemed improbable that NK has access to this technology more than 2 decades later.:confused:

Firstly, because they've barely demonstrated the ability to make even very primitive functional nukes. Miniaturising them for use in small artillery shells is a far more difficult task, so it's extremely unlikely they've managed to do that before they've even had one working on a large missile.

Secondly, there's simply no evidence to suggest that they have.
 
Secondly, there's simply no evidence to suggest that they have.

North Korea is known to be one of the most secretive societies in the world.

Why would evidence of anything be in abundance?

For all anyone knows, these shells could have been procured in much the same way that South Africa did.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/74904.pdf

http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/nk-fact-sheet.cfm

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL34256.pdf

These documents are quite specific about NK nuclear capability and the history of this capability with delivery systems.

In any event, the possibility should not be dismissed out of hand, IMO.

The other issue of course is that should war break out between the North and South, can the USA afford to be engaged in another protracted war?
 
My personal favorite from this article:

North Korean tanks have skins 700 mm thick and TOW-II is the only anti-tank missile in the US arsenal that can penetrate this armored skin.

That's over two feet of armor. For comparison, Japanese battleship Yamato and Musashi, two heaviest ever built, had 650 mm thick armor on turrets, the most heavily armored place on the most heavily armored ship in history. Ship armors were traditionally thicker than tank armors, for obvious reasons.

McHrozni
 
North Korea is known to be one of the most secretive societies in the world.

Why would evidence of anything be in abundance?

...

These documents are quite specific about NK nuclear capability and the history of this capability with delivery systems.


:boggled:
 
My personal favorite from this article:

North Korean tanks have skins 700 mm thick and TOW-II is the only anti-tank missile in the US arsenal that can penetrate this armored skin.

That's over two feet of armor. For comparison, Japanese battleship Yamato and Musashi, two heaviest ever built, had 650 mm thick armor on turrets, the most heavily armored place on the most heavily armored ship in history. Ship armors were traditionally thicker than tank armors, for obvious reasons.

McHrozni

The size is referring to "Line of sight" thickness. As I said previously, yes the number quoted in the article is incorrect, along with just about every other specification the author tried to present for a tank. But the M1A2 Abrams has 894mm LOS thickness, so the number presented is not too crazy, even though it is still incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloped_armour
 

Those documents I referenced were not written by NK.

They are the extent of western knowledge gathered by intelligence and nuclear agencies who have had access to NK nuclear sites in the past.

This does not imply that every thing is known about these activities.
As an example, when you sign the non proliferation treaty, like NK did, but later rescinded (2003), it is not obligatory to reveal the past as the treaty is a forwarding looking treaty.

Did you read any of those documents?
 
North Korea is known to be one of the most secretive societies in the world.
If they had something that made them able to inflict so much harm on their neighbors, they wouldn't be quiet about that. They'd boast.

Its one thing to trot out a really cool looking aircraft and call it "stealth" but is it really? Stealth requires more than just the form of the aircraft but advanced composite design which I do not believe China or Russia have the capabilities of constructing
American YF-22 and YF-23 prototypes flew with a new type of stealth skin material in 1990. The older type (which is effective but was replaced because it's more work to maintain) flew on B-2s in 1989 and YF-117s in 1981. The elapsed time between any of those dates and now is how many years behind the USA another country could lag and still have found an effective material to make a stealth plane's skin out of by now. (And people have been caught trying to sneak technical details of these planes' development out to other countries.)

nor do they have the advanced avionics and software to fly the plane with confidence.
I don't want to be offensive or personal about this, but that idea is just silly. Both countries have been independently developing, producing, and flying their own combat planes for decades. Even if they lag behind North American & European countries in some technicalities, their ability to make the planes work is soundly proven beyond any doubt. To suggest otherwise is like that scene in "Bridge on the River Kwai" where the captors demand help from their captives in designing a bridge, in a region where people have been building bridges for millennia. For that matter, flight control in planes built for maneuvering not only isn't a great weakness in the major Asian powers' planes, it's pretty much their greatest strength.

Russia can seriously be said to be more advanced than the USA in terms of aerodynamics & flight controls. Their planes have long been more maneuverable than our nearest counterparts (including with the comparison between F-22 and T-50) without any greater tendency to fall out of control. They have a history of advanced experimentation and rapid readiness for mass production of complex concepts in aerodynamics that the USA never even tried or only briefly tinkered with and dropped. Neither of Russia's two main producers of fighters has made one without thrust vectoring since the 1990s (several years before F-22 production began, and we've still put out another new design since then without it), and their systems can redirect the thrust not only up or down, in some cases to a wider range of angles than an F-22, but also sideways, and independently in two different directions in the same plane's right and left engines. They've also put canards for maneuverability (including in combination with tail fins rather than replacing them) on some production planes even longer than that (on and off), while the USA had just a few experiments with the idea (by NASA instead of the Air Force) and never went anywhere with it. One Russian company recently built and flew an innovative and unprecedentedly maneuverable prototype with forward-swept wings that could have gone into production by now if it had found a buyer, and the aerodynamic experience they gained from that influenced part of the electronic control systems they've used in two other non-forward-swept models they've released since then.

China hasn't been recognized worldwide as quite such a leader in aerodynamics & maneuvering as Russia has, but their own planes have generally kept up in worldwide context, and they have Russian planes and have bought some of the Russians' research & development data. The configuration of the J-20 is a delta wing with canards in front (pretty standard on all of the latest European fighters), which is a complicated thing to control, but they've done it before on the J-9 and J-10, so the Chinese have been quite familiar with its quirks and the appropriate fly-by-wire programming to deal with it for years, just like the Europeans (more so than Americans, since Americans haven't worked directly with anything in that configuration). By using that configuration on the J-20, they're sticking with what they already know they can do, not taking a risk with something that would be odd and new for them.

The other issue of course is that should war break out between the North and South, can the USA afford to be engaged in another protracted war?
And if we can afford it, do we have the will to do it?
 
If they had something that made them able to inflict so much harm on their neighbors, they wouldn't be quiet about that. They'd boast.....

...And if we can afford it, do we have the will to do it?

Given that they are threatening to engage in holy war by means of nuclear weapons, I would say they are boasting about it and have been for some time too.

I was listening to the radio this morning and the American deficit was being discussed.

It is beyond comprehension and surely cannot be sustained without just printing more money with the associated devaluation.

As far as the will to go to war, if I was an American, I wouldn't have the will for it.

I would be thinking "Enough already" lets sort our own problems out.

NK OTOH, strikes me as being fanatical and depraved.

Nothing would bother them, not even their own destruction.
What a sad world we live in.:mad:
 
I don't think you know what you are talking about.

That's possible, but I'm not sure you do either.


I see from that link that South Africa exported howitzers. I can find nothing on that page referring to nuclear weapons. In fact, I can't even find the word "nuclear" (or "nuke", or any misspellings starting with "nu") on that page at all.


I know South Africa worked on nuclear bombs. But I don't see anything there to indicate that they miniaturized a bomb sufficiently to make it artillery-deliverable. The caption on the photo on that first page mentions ballistic missiles and aerial bombs, it makes no mention of artillery. Admittedly I didn't read the whole thing, but it's long, and I'm not going to go on a wild goose chase. If something from that link indicates they did so, can you quote it, or indicate where within that link it is?
 
That's possible, but I'm not sure you do either.?

Touche Ziggy:D


I know South Africa worked on nuclear bombs. But I don't see anything there to indicate that they miniaturized a bomb sufficiently to make it artillery-deliverable.

My words quoted below. The intent was to say that SA had developed the G5/G6 that could fire nuclear shells, not that SA had developed and produced nuclear shells.

"South Africa developed the G5 and G6 howitzers with nuclear shell capability"


My words 2 posts later.

"For all anyone knows, these shells could have been procured in much the same way that South Africa did."

A quote in a subsequent post.

"A British authority on nuclear weapons, Dr. David Baker, said that the weapon fired in this test was probably a 155 mm nuclear shell fired from a special howitzer which the Israelis had helped the South Africans acquire."


I found a link to the above quote.
At least I am substantiating my post with references rather than just my personal opinion, unlike you.:)


http://books.google.co.za/books?id=... on nuclear weapons, Dr. David Baker"&f=false
 
"For all anyone knows, these shells could have been procured in much the same way that South Africa did."

But where is the evidence that South Africa did acquire any such shells?

A quote in a subsequent post.

"A British authority on nuclear weapons, Dr. David Baker, said that the weapon fired in this test was probably a 155 mm nuclear shell fired from a special howitzer which the Israelis had helped the South Africans acquire."

So the South Africans were involved with an Israeli test of a weapon which might have been a nuclear artillery shell. That's not the same thing as South Africa having acquired a nuclear artillery shell.

And frankly, I don't find it credible that anyone would give North Korea such a weapon either. Who are the candidates? Iran might be willing to, but they have no such weapons. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, but probably not artillery shells, and frankly, even if they had some, they'd probably consider them too valuable to trade to North Korea. China and Russia have no incentive to do something like that. It just doesn't have any real upside, not when other forms of support (like food and fuel) are so much less risky and would actually do more to keep the regime from collapsing.

The only real use for nuclear weapons for North Korea is as a threat in order to blackmail us into giving them food and fuel. But blackmail doesn't work if you keep the threat a secret. North Korea has given no indication or suggestion that they have nuclear artillery. From that alone I think it's a pretty safe bet that they don't. Their posturing has revolved completely around ballistic missiles. That's where the real threat lies.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom