North Korea's Military Capabilities

[Skwinty]

When South Africa signed the non proliferation treaty, they were under no obligation to reveal all their secrets. That they chose to dismantle their stockpile does not uncover all of their activities.

My words below from an earlier post.

"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."

Even today, there is still no official confirmation from any government that the double flash Vela incident or Operation Phenix even happened.

Hence my statement , "I suspect that one day the truth of this incident will be exposed"

Either way, when you investigate the military manufacturing capacity that SA had in previous years with Israeli support, the veracity of a nuclear shell being tested would not surprise me.

As for who would supply NK with such shells, I wouldn't know.
If I were planning a war with NK, I wouldn't dismiss any suspicion of what they might or might not have.

I would plan for the worst case scenario, and the worst case scenario would include nuclear artillery shells.

But that is just my opinion.

 

[catsmate]

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.

I don't think you know what you are talking about.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rsa/industry.htm

http://books.google.co.za/books?id=...PSTLTyoEyiVTOvGMa1s&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

Of course South Africa got technology from abroad, just like America got technology from the Nazis.

South Africa produced a small number of nuclear weapons, none of them were intended for delivery by artillery shell.

Gerard Bull and SRC developed advanced howitzers (such as the GC-45), and the Extended Range Full Bore ammunition for them (which he also combined with Base Bleed technology), initially for Israel but also for South Africa where the GC-45 was manufactured by Armscor/Denel in modified form as the G5. They continue to sell an improved version.
In theory either weapon is capable of firing nuclear shells, they are fully compatible with NATO standard 155mm ammunition; however only the US manufactured such rounds and they were disassembled years ago. Only the US and Soviet Union deployed nuclear cannon shells, other countries relied on other delivery systems.
Regardless of it's possession of nuclear weapons I would be confident that North Korea has not developed nuclear artillery shells; their design is tricky requiring a rather advanced weapon design because of the constraints of the cannon launch. The USA first developed 155mm shells carrying a nuclear payload in 1963 and the development of a 127mm round ended with a 'fizzle' of a test detonation.

 

[catsmate]

Touche Ziggy




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

The G5 and G6 were capable of firing NATO standard 155mm rounds; the US W48 and W82-1 could be fired from it, if any still existed. This does not mean that South Africa developed such shells of its own.

 

[Skwinty]

According to this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_artillery

The first nuclear artillery test was carried out in 1953.

A number of nations had them.

"Nowadays, nuclear artillery has almost been replaced with mobile tactical ballistic missile launchers carrying missiles with nuclear warheads. However, some countries, such as China, India and Pakistan (and there is a rumor that North Korea is capable of using nuclear artillery), are still using nuclear artillery as an alternative method derived from conventional ballistic missiles."

See this link for Russia not destroying all their nuclear shells page 99 and 100. http://books.google.com/books?id=7F...&resnum=9&ved=0CFMQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[Skwinty]

This does not mean that South Africa developed such shells of its own.

I never said they did, although you may have read that between the lines.

 

[catsmate]

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.

Baker was wrong, if he said that. I am unable to find any primary sources for his statement.
After the end of Apartheid South Africa released information about its nuclear weapons; none of them were capable of being delivered by 155mm artillery and all seven were designed as free fall bombs delivered by aircraft, specifically the Canberra. They were disassembled in the 1990s. There is no credible evidence of a second nuclear test.
South Africa had assistance from Israel (and thus, indirectly the US) in developing its weapons and from France in developing its nuclear reactors. North Korea has neither.

 

[WildCat]

All that aside, nuclear cannons were abandoned for obvious reasons, the biggest of which is your troops would be setting off a nuclear explosion 20 miles or so away.

 

[Skwinty]

Interesting commentary on US Intelligence gathering capability.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Milita...presses-for-answers-on-its-nuclear-capability

 

[catsmate]

All that aside, nuclear cannons were abandoned for obvious reasons, the biggest of which is your troops would be setting off a nuclear explosion 20 miles or so away.

Yep. They're a useful part of a nuclear arsenal if you're planning on making extensive use of nuclear weapons, as they enable a large number of weapons nuclear capabilities. But otherwise they're not worth the cost, trouble and risk.

 

[Cuddles]

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./QUOTE]

So your entire argument that North Korea might have nuclear artillery is that there's no evidence that they do, and someone else in a completely different situation might have helped someone else test them once? Seriously?

 

[Skwinty]

So your entire argument that North Korea might have nuclear artillery is that there's no evidence that they do, and someone else in a completely different situation might have helped someone else test them once? Seriously?

Firstly, it's not an argument, it's a hypothesis based on reports of Operation Phenix and the Vela Project. It is also not my entire argument. Have you been reading my posts or just cherry picking and conflating?

What do critical thinkers like to state, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, or something equally profound.

Nuclear shells were at one stage quite common and deployed all over, including, I believe South Korea.
Any illicit use of these shells is not going to documented and broadcast for the world to know. My point was, if South africa managed to build nuclear devices 30 years ago, and possibly get access to a nuclear shell or two, why not North Korea.

Also, given that Russia had a stockpile of them which were not all destroyed, it is a possible source, albeit a remote one.
However, the point is, who really knows what North Korea has or does not have. I have given lot's of references, but I suspect no one bothers to read them because they believe the "infallible" Western Intelligence agencies who of course have an impeccable record as far as weapons of mass destruction are concerned.

Read the link in my post about an interesting commentary on US intelligence. I suppose you will say, oh, but it's the CSM who reported that, so obviously it is false.

I have read of an American politician in the defense sector state that North Korea will fall in 3 hours, just as American defense politicians stated that the Gulf war would be over in 6 weeks. They even had a big message on the aircraft carrier announcing Mission Accomplished when Bush arrived a few weeks after the start.

10 years later the war continues.

Such hubris.

Based on this intelligence people can make absolute pronouncements on how easy the North Koreans will fall in the event of war. They may not be religous, but they worship their leader and are fanatics of the worst sort.

No wonder America ends up with prolonged wars which only serve to breed more terrorists and anti american sentiment.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Ziggurat]

All that aside, nuclear cannons were abandoned for obvious reasons, the biggest of which is your troops would be setting off a nuclear explosion 20 miles or so away.

The norkers wouldn't have a problem with that. But it makes no sense. A nuclear artillery shell would be a huge threat. The purpose of North Korean threats is not to actually destroy the South. The purpose is to extort concessions from them and us. But you can't extort anything if you don't make the threat known. Why would North Korea spend what would be massive efforts for them to develop a weapon that would pose a huge threat, and then not make the threat known? It runs counter to everything they've been doing.

 

[Ziggurat]

I have read of an American politician in the defense sector state that North Korea will fall in 3 hours, just as American defense politicians stated that the Gulf war would be over in 6 weeks. They even had a big message on the aircraft carrier announcing Mission Accomplished when Bush arrived a few weeks after the start.

10 years later the war continues.

No, Skwinty. The war does not continue. A different war started and continues. We are fighting a different enemy now than we did during the invasion.

If you want to claim that a guerilla insurgency would start after the fall of North Korea, you might have some basis for this comparison. But 1) South Korea would be the ones handling that, not us, and 2) I don't see much reason to think that would happen, given how dependent the North will be on the South for even the most basic stuff like food. Do you think China would really want to fund a North Korean insurgency? That's the only way it could work. But I don't see that as being worth it to them. That would threaten trade relations, and provide little benefit. The only condition under which I can envisage it is if China also ended up in a war over Taiwan, in which case they might try an insurgency to divert some of our resources away from that theater. But in such an event, that's really a secondary problem for us.

 

[Rogue1stclass]

Nuclear shells were at one stage quite common and deployed all over, including, I believe South Korea.
Any illicit use of these shells is not going to documented and broadcast for the world to know. My point was, if South africa managed to build nuclear devices 30 years ago, and possibly get access to a nuclear shell or two, why not North Korea.

The US only produced one type of nuclear artillery shell in large quantity, and largely abandoned the idea in the 1970s in favor of nuclear armed missiles as did the Soviets.

Extremely low yield nukes (we are talking single-digit kiloton range) like these have limited use and are expensive and potentially very dangerous to keep around and functioning, requiring as they do more reactive materials to achieve fission.

Also, given that Russia had a stockpile of them which were not all destroyed, it is a possible source, albeit a remote one.
However, the point is, who really knows what North Korea has or does not have. I have given lot's of references, but I suspect no one bothers to read them because they believe the "infallible" Western Intelligence agencies who of course have an impeccable record as far as weapons of mass destruction are concerned.

Nuclear weapons don't have an unlimited shelf life. The fissionable material and electronics have to be cycled and recycled regularly to remain functional. This requires specialized equipment and expertise. While it is perhaps possible that North Korea acquired these weapons and the ability to maintain them, it is extremely unlikely.

Read the link in my post about an interesting commentary on US intelligence. I suppose you will say, oh, but it's the CSM who reported that, so obviously it is false.

I have read of an American politician in the defense sector state that North Korea will fall in 3 hours, just as American defense politicians stated that the Gulf war would be over in 6 weeks. They even had a big message on the aircraft carrier announcing Mission Accomplished when Bush arrived a few weeks after the start.

10 years later the war continues.

Such hubris.

Based on this intelligence people can make absolute pronouncements on how easy the North Koreans will fall in the event of war. They may not be religous, but they worship their leader and are fanatics of the worst sort.

No wonder America ends up with prolonged wars which only serve to breed more terrorists and anti american sentiment.

Just my 2 cents.

As has been pointed out, the war with Iraq was over rather quickly. So quickly, in fact, that it turned out the Iraqis as a people still had plenty of fight left in them and split into factions to try to take what they could. It is the consequence, perhaps the inevitable one, of trying wage war on a government instead of a nation as a whole.

With North Korea, I doubt anyone has any illusion that such a separation is possible.

 

[egslim]

There is an important difference between 'winning' a war and 'not losing' it.

If North Korea attacks they will do tremendous damage to the South's cities and economy during the first few hours, killing a lot of people.
The South's reply, almost certainly reinforced by the US, will then probably destroy the North's military systematically and occupy the country. The 'if' is political, not military. The occupied North will be empoverished, devastated by warfare and inhabited by a population hostile from years of propaganda. While the South's economy has taken a lot of damage too.
In other words, while the South won't lose, it won't be a victory in anything but the narrowest sense of the word either.

China is of course a wildcard. Its position is ambivalent. To China North Korea is both an old friend and a pain in the butt. Meanwhile the US is a competitor they don't want to obtain a foothold in North Korea. Third, the prospect of several hundred thousand North Korean refugees pooring into China would be most unwelcome.

China and South Korea presently have quite good relations. If North Korea invades the South it will be most unwelcome to China, and I don't expect they would support the North in any way. In that case I think China's main objectives will be:
1) To prevent a massive influx of North Korean refugees.
2) To prevent a permanent US military presence on the Chinese border.
I think if those objectives can be satisfied China would not interfere to defend the North against the South's counterattack.

 

[Skwinty]

No, Skwinty. The war does not continue. A different war started and continues. We are fighting a different enemy now than we did during the invasion.

I have always viewed the war that started in Kuwait, restarted in Iraq and continued in Afghanistan to be slices of the same cake.
Of course the US has big interests in Iraq and Kuwait, so occupation was essential. So the method or prosecution of the war has changed, but IMO, still the war of US interests versus the Iraqi war of American imperialism.

If you want to claim that a guerilla insurgency would start after the fall of North Korea, you might have some basis for this comparison. But 1) South Korea would be the ones handling that, not us, and 2) I don't see much reason to think that would happen, given how dependent the North will be on the South for even the most basic stuff like food.

My view on this is simply that North Korea has had many years to prepare for precisely this type of guerilla war. As for the threat of nuclear war, they have certainly been bragging and threatening this "sacred nuclear war" and it is not neccessary to specify what type of nuclear weapons you intend to use.

If the US assists South Korea to defeat North Korea and then leave the South to clean up the mess, then it is only because the US has no interests there.

If Kuwait and Iraq had only tomato plantations, then the situation would be different today.

I do not believe that North Korea cares about starving the "peasants" to keep the military elite alive, so food may not be an issue for those who are fighting.

Either way, let's hope a political solution can be found as another war is not desirable for any of the involved parties.

 

[USEagle13]

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.

What religion/God they worship in North Korea? Satan/Devil/Dragon?

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.

Oh well. You can't eat money anyways. It's time people learn how to be self sufficient again and stop depending on government handouts. It's called survival of fittest.

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

That is why families like mine exist. We defend the weak and meek who have no will or way to defend the country.

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

Isolationism!? That is what allowed Hitler to gain so much traction in Europe before people stopped sitting on their hands.

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.

It is called "evil." Despite the fact unbelievers don't recognize it does not mean it is not there. Hardcore Liberalism and Denial-ism go hand in hand and can get your peeps in serious trouble if left unchecked.

Basically, if you do not make a stand against "pure evil," eventually it will spill out of "said" countries and start affecting more than just a limited area.

Especially since we live in a world where everyone is connected with each other more than ever before.

My grandpa (a hardened Korean War veteran who was a platoon Sergeant w/tons of battle stars) has been harping about "I sure hope we don't have to go back to Korea. It is one cold SOB over there."

Ever since I can remember, he would say that when telling me his awesome war stories (he was behind enemy lines in a forward base fighting Chinese in the mountains for almost 4yrs).

I used to think he was just talking out of his rear.

Now I know he wasn't. I think deep down inside he knows we didn't accomplish a damn thing over there.

 

[egslim]

What religion/God they worship in North Korea? Satan/Devil/Dragon?

Kim Jong Il. One does not need to be fictional to be worshipped.

That is why families like mine exist. We defend the weak and meek who have no will or way to defend the country.

In practice you more often fight wars that do nothing to defend the country or its interests at large, certainly not in proportion to their cost. But that's a derail.

Isolationism!? That is what allowed Hitler to gain so much traction in Europe before people stopped sitting on their hands.

Why is it so hard for some people to understand that different situations call for different solutions?

Sometimes intervention is a good thing. Sometimes it does no good at all, and can even make things worse.

It is called "evil." Despite the fact unbelievers don't recognize it does not mean it is not there.

The problem with "evil" is it lacks any form of useful description, and is highly subjective as well.

Basically, if you do not make a stand against "pure evil," eventually it will spill out of "said" countries and start affecting more than just a limited area.

In relation to North Korea, the solution lies with China.

China considers North Korea as both an old friend and a problem.

When North Korea provokes and the US takes the lead to respond, then China is forced to support North Korea to defend its sphere of influence/face against US interference.

If you want to isolate North Korea from its champion (China), then you have to give China and South Korea the lead in dealing with the North Korean problem. That way China gains face and influence from a succesful outcome, instead of losing it. Incentive is key.

 

[Ziggurat]

Of course the US has big interests in Iraq and Kuwait, so occupation was essential. So the method or prosecution of the war has changed, but IMO, still the war of US interests versus the Iraqi war of American imperialism.

We haven't engaged in imperialism in about a century.

As for the threat of nuclear war, they have certainly been bragging and threatening this "sacred nuclear war" and it is not neccessary to specify what type of nuclear weapons you intend to use.

Their ballistic missile tests make it quite obvious what they want to use.

If the US assists South Korea to defeat North Korea and then leave the South to clean up the mess, then it is only because the US has no interests there.

Well, no. It's because South Korea is rather obviously better equipped to handle it, starting with the fact that they all speak the language.

If Kuwait and Iraq had only tomato plantations, then the situation would be different today.

Indeed: Iraq never would have built up the massive military it had, and so wouldn't have been positioned to stage an invasion in the first place. Nor would it have had an incentive to, since Kuwait's oil is what Saddam was after.

I do not believe that North Korea cares about starving the "peasants" to keep the military elite alive

I'm sure they don't, but I don't think you understand how dire the food situation is. If conflict breaks out, it isn't just the peasants who might starve, it's the soldiers. And when the soldiers start starving, the military elite have nothing to protect themselves with.

 

[quixotecoyote]

The norkers wouldn't have a problem with that. But it makes no sense. A nuclear artillery shell would be a huge threat. The purpose of North Korean threats is not to actually destroy the South. The purpose is to extort concessions from them and us. But you can't extort anything if you don't make the threat known. Why would North Korea spend what would be massive efforts for them to develop a weapon that would pose a huge threat, and then not make the threat known? It runs counter to everything they've been doing.

They're waiting for the premier's birthday. It will be a big surprise.