Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
nam
BRFite
Posts: 410
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby nam » 04 Sep 2017 22:04

shiv wrote:Yes. this is precisely what I am getting at. When nations like the US and Russia - at the top of the nuke heap find themselves at a dead end of their own making, it would be temping to bend the rules and go into hitherto taboo areas. Winning nuclear war with low yield, accurate nuclear PGMs to take out the hardest targets, and conventional bombs for the rest. This would be tempting against an adversary like NoKo I would have thought. But not for long


It was tried earlier. Soviets made preparation to nuke Loop Nor. Told the Americans that they were going to do it. US refused to support it. Russia had to back off.

There was a report on this. It also mentioned how Russia considered it a great betrayal.

One of the main reason US & Russia don't want to do, is fundamentally to prevent others from going in to this path.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33306
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby shiv » 05 Sep 2017 08:00

cross post
UlanBatori wrote:shiv:

The US would make the same "mistake" that India did in 1990 if Trump does not preemptively destroy NoKo nuke facilities and missile facilities this week.
<snip>

P.S. Those who :(( :twisted: about Indian failure to "take out" Pakistani nuke capacity in 1990, should please explain why the US is condemning generations to living in fear of NoKo/PRC thermonuclear blackmail? It is Strike Now Or Forever Stay With Ur Thumb Up Ur Mushattaf.

The best chance is now. I don't think China will join.

India will neither support the US or China. We will mouth platitudes and say "dialogueueue is the best way forward". That said - India has no reason to join either side.

The US fought supported the Chinese nation against Japan, and later fought the Chinese communists in Korea. Later the US allied with the same Chinese communists via Pakistan to defeat the USSR in Afghanistan and that led directly to the nuclear arming of Pakistan and later Korea. Now the US does not have China. Pakistan or Russia on its side. I'm guessing that the whole world is "morally" allied with the US. That is like watching a man being shot. You are "morally allied" with the victim but can't lift a finger to help.

Maybe India should grow balls and ask for action against NoKo. The fuggin UN was formed to "keep the peace" in the world and control trouble spots. But all that the UN does is Congo etc - but thumb in musharraf is the rule when it comes to IndiaPakistan, NoKovsworld etc.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33306
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby shiv » 05 Sep 2017 08:03

nam wrote:One of the main reason US & Russia don't want to do, is fundamentally to prevent others from going in to this path.

I have heard this chicanery for too long.

Both nations have failed miserably while the rest of the world have slobbered over them as the "two great powers". A few nations who realized what was happening went into the nuke acquiring business realizing that it was simply nukes that bring respect. And that number is gradually increasing and the power of the US is diminishing by the day. Russia is already a spent force.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2879
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby vera_k » 05 Sep 2017 08:48

UlanBatori wrote:I am trying to figure out why Trump despite all his rhetoric, and despite having accumulated forces nearby for the past 6 months, is not striking.


OpEd in the WSJ says the President may be in favor of having Japan go nuclear, followed by South Korea and Taiwan in quick succession.

Suresh S
BRFite
Posts: 581
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 22:19

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby Suresh S » 05 Sep 2017 09:14

I predict very high probability NOKO will get attacked within the next few weeks to months. First salvo of thousands of cruise missiles taking out all their BM sites and air force, radars etc.One likely thing as cruise missiles are slow and dear leader may have some warning time first strike may be with weapons which does not give enough warning to dear leader like stand off weapons launched from aircrafts or even BMs. If they retaliate with artillery on Seoul these will be taken out with air strikes and missile hits. Tactical nukes use by US distinct possibility. High probability of damage in Seoul and Japan( Tokyo, Osaka) and Guam, may be Hawaii as well. Dear Leader likely will be hit in the first salvo.

I think China will enter the conflict. Could happen even before US strikes.

manju
BRFite
Posts: 622
Joined: 12 Feb 2003 12:31
Location: CA, USA

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby manju » 05 Sep 2017 09:26

pankajs wrote:^^
Why will a TNW for Nuke set a dangerous precedence and how does it support Bakis theory?

The bakis theory, as I understand it, is a TNW for a *conventional attack* that they could not repulse. In return India has promised a nuke for a TNW.

As far as india is concerned a nuke is a nuke whether it is a nuke or a TNW. The same will hold for China too. We will hit back at their military base in retaliation if they launch a TNW at our forces.



what is TNW?

Chinmay
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 97
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 07:25

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby Chinmay » 05 Sep 2017 09:52

Tactical Nuclear Weapon

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33306
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby shiv » 05 Sep 2017 09:55

vera_k wrote:
UlanBatori wrote:I am trying to figure out why Trump despite all his rhetoric, and despite having accumulated forces nearby for the past 6 months, is not striking.


OpEd in the WSJ says the President may be in favor of having Japan go nuclear, followed by South Korea and Taiwan in quick succession.

This actually makes me laugh. After having stated for 50 plus years that the US will look after security for these nations, the US is now talking of abdicating its responsibility under the guise of making these nations independent and strong

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33306
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby shiv » 05 Sep 2017 10:10

Suresh S wrote:I think China will enter the conflict. Could happen even before US strikes.

In the last few days I read a story that Dear Leader had his brother killed because he feels China would want to depose him and would have replaced him with dear blothel

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19470
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby Austin » 05 Sep 2017 14:43

Putin: Military hysteria over N. Korea may lead to planetary catastrophe, heavy loss of life
Pyongyang will not relinquish its military program under pressure of sanctions and military threats, because the examples of Iraq and Libya have convinced it that nuclear deterrence is the only credible way to ensure its security, President Putin told journalists on Tuesday.

Ramping up military hysteria in such conditions is senseless; it’s a dead end,” he added. “It could lead to a global, planetary catastrophe and a huge loss of human life. There is no other way to solve the North Korean nuclear issue, save that of peaceful dialogue.”

As I told my colleagues yesterday, they will eat grass but will not stop their program as long as they do not feel safe,” Putin said. “What can restore their security? The restoration of international law.”

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2684
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby Cain Marko » 05 Sep 2017 19:30

UlanBatori wrote:I am trying to figure out why Trump despite all his rhetoric, and despite having accumulated forces nearby for the past 6 months, is not striking. A US strike on NoKo nuclear facilities within minutes of the H2 explosion, would have been seen as logical and expected. So why no action? At least I would have expected at least the sinking of a NoKo sub or two.

Is it because the weapons are clearly Chinese and battle-ready not NoKo and developmental - so hitting development facilities does nothing? Or do spy sats show that the weapons have already been moved back inside China? But despite all that, what matters is that NoKo is now a H2-bum State. Is the US going to accept that with tail between legs?


Yes. There is no way either the Japanese or soko folks will allow US to strike. Too much at stake for them. Chances of massive US losses are also on the cards.

One good thing from this is that China is temporarily looking away from d oklam

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2684
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby Cain Marko » 05 Sep 2017 19:36

shiv wrote:cross post
UlanBatori wrote:shiv:

The US would make the same "mistake" that India did in 1990 if Trump does not preemptively destroy NoKo nuke facilities and missile facilities this week.
<snip>

P.S. Those who :(( :twisted: about Indian failure to "take out" Pakistani nuke capacity in 1990, should please explain why the US is condemning generations to living in fear of NoKo/PRC thermonuclear blackmail? It is Strike Now Or Forever Stay With Ur Thumb Up Ur Mushattaf.

The best chance is now.


Best chance came and went over a decade ago. But then they were engaged in eyeraq then. Now thumbs up Musharraf is only option.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8340
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby UlanBatori » 05 Sep 2017 20:55

All points above are correct but reading of American history is wrong. The ppl in the Pentagon take courses with big thick books on the Korean War and Franklin Roosevelt charging up San Juan Hill, and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Imagine how the Commander of the 7th Fleet (new one) and Pacific Fleet will go down in history: the fools who went to North Korea and watched them test ICBMs with "Round-Eye Devils" written all over them, and then returned in meek surrender without firing a single shot in anger.

"Kicked the cans down the road, and the road has ended".

Besides, it takes only ONE "incident".

Suresh S
BRFite
Posts: 581
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 22:19

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby Suresh S » 05 Sep 2017 22:17

I wonder if it is a tactical move by china to temporarily make up with India in case of a war on the Korean peninsula to decrease the chances of India taking advantage and launching an attack in Aksai hind /other areas.

kumarn
BRFite
Posts: 429
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 16:19

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby kumarn » 05 Sep 2017 22:41

If it comes to that we should surely readjust the LAC. Hope we have plans ready for such an eventuality.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33306
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby shiv » 07 Sep 2017 09:07

Cross post 1 of 2
Anyone remember this?
https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/s ... kes/205732
outlookindia.com
The Slimming Of Nukes
8-10 minutes

THEY'LLbe the size of a tea-cup and weigh less than a kilogram each. They won't cost much. They'll be easily compatible on delivery systems like small missiles and artillery systems. And they'll yield the equivalent of 1 to 10 tons of TNT. But that's not where Fourth Generation Nuclear (FGN) weapons make their real killing. Their biggest attraction is: they're based on atomic and nuclear processes not restricted even under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

Herein lies the contradiction in global non-proliferation regimes. While current generation N-weapons are 1,000,000 times more powerful than conventional ones, FGN weapons are only 1,000 times more potent. So, while unleashing the power of the atom and revolutionising conventional warfare,they still won't be "weapons of mass destruction". And so, won't contradict any international law. Says Andre Gsponer, nuclear physicist at the Independent Scientific Research Institute, Geneva: "FGN weapons will fill the gap that exists today between conventional and nuclear weapons."

At the cutting edge of this technology today are the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the US, the UK, Russia, China, France), Germany and Japan. But analysts say the danger of FGN weapons—given their low cost and small size, factors that allow R&D to proceed in greater secrecy—is that more and more countries could well jump onto the bandwagon.

"The signing of the CTBT and the implementation of politically-correct programmes might well herald the 'Golden Age' of thermonuclear weapons proliferation," comments Jean-Pierre Hurni, who co-authored a technical report on FGN weapons with Gsponer last year. As of now, no one's stopping the construction of what are called large Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) simulation facilities, he says. The upshot? "We'll soon witness the emergence of a number of virtual thermonuclear weapons states as well as the diffusion of FGN weapons."

"It's amazing how the perception has come about that research on more and more sophisticated nuclear weapons has stopped," says Suren Erkman, director, Institute for Communication and Analysis of Science and Technology, Geneva. "Many political analysts believe the Star Wars programme has stopped. If anything, it has accelerated. Under new names (like GPALS: Global Protection Against Limited Strike), its public visibility has momentarily decreased, but the science and technology behind directed energy weapons is still active."

While these new weapons use either fusion or fission fuels as their main explosive charge, the yield generation mode in the fission process is the subcritical mode which is not forbidden under the CTBT. Sub-critical fission burns are not suitable for making high-yield weapons, but they do just fine for mini-nukes with 1 to 100 ton yields.

In other words, long-term technological dynamics are at work, quite independent of the diplomatic and political facade. After decades of making crude N-weapons, this is allowing some countries to envision sophisticated nukes.

For this type of explosive, the preferred technique is to use magnetic compression to increase the density of the fissile material and a very small amount of anti-matter to initiate the critical burn. While anti-matter and lasers will be used as igniters, the main charge could be deuterium-tritium pellets 0.5 cm in size and compressed by a factor of 1,000. Says Gsponer:"In the compression of pellets the world record is held by Japan. They achieved a density 600 times more than the initial density. "

Moreover, over the last 10 years, laser intensities have increased by over four orders of magnitude. Superlasers are said to be the biggest discovery in nuclear physics in the last 10 years. Even with increasing intensity, they're exceedingly compact and cost in the region of $1 million upwards. France-based BM Industries sold a superlaser to China last year for $1 million. A Russian superlaser facility has been set up in St Petersburg, funded by a western consortium that doesn't want to see Russian scientists escape with their capabilities to the 'unmanageable' Third World.

SINCE the '60s, the US has been consistent in its policy of 'not defining precisely what constitutes a nuclear explosion'. This has led to contradictions in the CTBT, which, on the one hand, "permits no yield from nuclear (fusion or fission) explosions—not one kiloton, not one kg, not one mg of yield, but zero yield". On the other hand, it allows micro-explosions with a yield of the order of 10 tons.

Says Gsponer: "The reason for not including micro-explosions in the scope of the NPT or CTBT as suggested by India comes largely from the unwillingness of the nuclear weapon states to accept restrictions in this area of research." Adds Erkman: "For the nuclear weapon states in the West, live detonations of second and third generations bombs are no longer of any use. They gained positive publicity for the so-called abstention but also shut the door down on others."

It's how the West banned the atmospheric tests of the '50s and '60s. They claimed it was because they didn't want radiation fall-outs in other countries. The real reasons were military. The particles travelled a long distance in air and they could reveal a lot of critical information about the design and mechanisms of the detonated device. They didn't want the 'enemy' to know that.

Also, the fact that sub-critical experiments were not prohibited by the CTBT was clear when the US conducted its first sub-critical test of the post-CTBT era in July '97. The first three negative reactions to this, within days, were from China, India and Indonesia. It took the European Parliament and 15 more countries seven months to call upon the US to refrain from such tests.

But a US state department report appended to President Bill Clinton's letter in September '97 expressly analyses "ICF and other similar experiments" as examples of CTBT-permitted activities "which, while not involving a nuclear explosion, may result in the release of nuclear energy".

Even the Germans, while signing the CTBT in '96, said "nothing in this treaty shall be interpreted or applied in a way as to prejudice or prevent research into and development of controlled thermonuclear fusion and its economic use".

What is interesting, however, is how military experts view the development.

At a conference on Molecular Nanotechnology in '95, Admiral David Jeremiah, former vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, US, said: "The battlefield of the future will be dominated by smart weapons that will allow us to reduce wholesale destruction and the tremendous expenditure of ordnance. The goal is finer precision, more selectivity, less need for mass."

Big nukes, he said, are "increasingly less useful to us" in military terms. He called them "political tools used by one nation of influence on the population of another, not tools we in the military need to carry out military operations". By this strict battlefield logic, the slimming of nuke technology has "a greater potential to radically change the balance of power".

All this isn't red-hot news either. Back in '80, Freeman Dyson wrote in Disturbing the Universe: "A permanent test ban would be a dangerous illusion because future improvements in weapons technology would create irresistible pressure towards secret and open violations of any such ban. In other words, fission-free bombs are the wave of the future...any political arrangement which ignores or denies their birthright is doomed to failure."

A year later, the question of the link between ICF and pure-fusion weapons was raised by physicists W.A. Smit and P. Boskma. It also prompted '67 Nobel laureate Hans A. Bethe, head of the theoretical division of Los Alamos during World War II, to ask the US to ban "all physical experiments, no matter how small their yield, whose primary purpose is to design new types of N-weapons".

In '78, Gsponer was one of the first physicists to see the coming of the Star Wars and write a paper on it before Ronald Reagan formalised it. Now he's the first to alert us on how FGN weapons are mushrooming under nonproliferation umbrellas. Says he: "The CTBT is just an instrument legitimising possession and perfection of N-weapons by nuclear states. What you really have to know is what's going on how in the laboratories and what it's leading to."

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33306
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby shiv » 07 Sep 2017 09:08

Cross post 2 of 2

I specifically started the this thread hoping that some of the following issues could be explored further.

It's like this - I believe that with the current crop of nuclear weapons nations have worked themselves into a stalemate. Will explain what I mean:

Nukes started off large (and by this I mean even 12 kiloton is large and "genocide" capable). They got even bigger in the hope that they would (for the US at least) mean total domination in all war for all time. That did not work. The USSR soon caught up and later China. There was then a scramble to prevent "others" from getting nukes so the self proclaimed "responsible" powers with nukes retained the capability. This plan has failed miserably. To summarize - everyone has a "deterrent" against everyone else.

Now if one nation is "deterred" from using its nukes because they can face horrendous retaliation that they do not want to face - the militaries are restricted from using nukes. Nukes then simply become a political tool and not a militarily usable one and this is as true for the US as it is for India.

It is precisely for this reason that there is a great attempt to make nuclear war "winnable by militaries" by enabling militaries (definitely USA, maybe Russia )to use nukes that do not carry a political burden. That political burden is fallout and the risk of massive incidental civilian casualties. So there appears to be a great deal of research quietly going on to have "small" nukes of the 0.1-0.2 kiloton or even 0.01 kiloton yields - delivered precisely to military targets with minimal fallout.

Nations like Pakistan and other new nuke nations are making their arsenal "invulnerable" by having nuke resistant bunkers. Ordinary bunker busters with 1-2000 kg TNT will not do the trick. But a nuclear bunker buster that penetrates 20 meters down and lets off a 0.1 kiloton blast equivalent to 100,000 kilograms of TNT will collapse underground bunkers. And the problem of using "megaton nukes" overground to develop "overpressures" to collapse underground bunkers and cause massive civilian casualties and subsequent fallout issues is eliminated. This is where nuclear weapons are going...

A military force tasked with eliminating Kim Young One hiding in an underground bunker would be happy to have a nuclear shovel to do the job.

Technically - if researchers could find a way to compress just 200 grams of Pu (or Tritium or something) and produce a "small bang" - it could be tested and tested and tested and no one would ever find out. I bet it's happening even as I type this. Combine that will a "less than 10 meter accuracy" Prithvi and every Paki bunker will get 72 female bunkers

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4893
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby ShauryaT » 07 Sep 2017 09:31

^Believe seismic monitors can pickup an explosion yielding anything upwards of 0.1 KT.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33306
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby shiv » 07 Sep 2017 09:52

ShauryaT wrote:^Believe seismic monitors can pickup an explosion yielding anything upwards of 0.1 KT.

With certain exceptions.. like testing in a cavity

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33306
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby shiv » 11 Sep 2017 10:10

I see that many people want to talk about the need for a large nuclear arsenal in case of nuclear war - that is breakdown of deterrence. Would it be possible for admins to change the name of this thread to "nuclear war-breakdown of deterrence". That was the intention of this thread anyway.

Will report my own post to admins.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17004
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby Philip » 11 Sep 2017 15:28

US diplomutts have been blindsided for decades.We had during the Cold War the Warsaw pact vs NATO.Both sides had as allies Soviet and American proxies.These proxies were armed to the gills with powerful weapons.The Sovs. based many of their N-deterrent assets in the Sov. republics like Kazakhasthan,etc. So too did the US arm its NATO allies like Britain with Polaris/Poseidon and now Trident ICBMs. Gaullist France preferred to develop their own and own them too! An exception.

Unfortunately,the US has never realised that China too has its own N-bloc.An "axis of evil" comprising Pak,China and NoKo. I've called this "triad" of evil "PACHINKO".It also spells the same as Pachinko , a Japanese table game,which was derived from Bagatalle.We've all played it as kids,steel balls moving through pins,etc. So when dealing with any problem involving one or other of the three,one must realise that all are connected! China deliberately gave nuclear and missile etch to Pak and NoKo to break the US's grip on N-=proliferation.The more client states it had under its control who were nuclear,the less powerful the US would become.However,the two client states have themselves over time become N-powers of some substance on their own and are demanding greater freedom of action from the mother-she-dragon. Despite China's anger at their disobedience at times which varies with each crisis,she needs them both and cannot disown them. Hence China's on warnings to the US and its allies.Not for a moment has China forgotten or forgiven the Japanese occupation of Manchuria,the "rape of Nanking",etc.etc. Hence its none-too subtle warnings to India,also colonised for centuries,about a mil. alliance with mortal enemy Japan.Nevertheless,if India is not an ally of China,but is developing mil ties with Japan,it is only China that is too blame.,and further aggro by China against India in the Himalayas,etc.,would lead to an acceleration of even closer mil ties with a more militarist Japan today,which rightly feels severely threatened by both NoKo and China,both nuclear weapons powers,leaving it completely exposed with only Uncle Donald's (Duck) tattered military umbrella all that stands between it and annihilation by nukes yet again.

The survival of this PACHINKO triad Chinese is fundamental to the Chinese overlordship of the Asia-Pacific and further beyond.It uses NoKo to keep SoKo and Jap[an at bay,on edge,bullies the littoral nations of the Indo-China Sea into submission,armtwists ASEAN,where Thailand and Cambodia are succumbing to its fatal attraction.In the Indian subcontinent,it uses Pak to blindside India and further seduction of the maritime nations of the region,BDesh,Burma and the IOR goes on apace. This is how India took its eyes of events in Sri Lanka until it was too late,missing golden opportunities first offered to it and whose diplomats are how running around like headless chickens to recover lost ground.Like a puppetmaster,China raises the stakes in either country when it requires to do so. The crisis with NoKo right now is that you have the Yanqui equiv. of Young UN Kim in White House...sorry,Trump Tower! In this macho contest,there will be no winners,only losers if ever the two bulls get to grips and China will be the biggest loser as it will either have to militarily intervene and suffer great losses or let its ally down and suffer loss of face,equally damaging.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17004
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby Philip » 12 Sep 2017 20:24

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/nor ... 42841.html
The weakened UN sanctions on North Korea show that the US has more bark than bite when it comes to Kim Jong-un
North Korea’s leader appears to be safe for the time being. After all, Muammar Gaddafi is unlikely to have been toppled and lynched if he had not given up his weapons of mass destruction in the hope of better relations with the West

Kim Sengupta
Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley has toned down her rhetoric towards North Korea Getty/Stephanie Kieth
From the threat to smite with “fire and fury likes of which the world has never seen” to being forced to climb down on the much heralded "super-tough" sanctions on Pyongyang at the UN, the policy of Donald Trump’s administration on North Korea continues on its confusing course.

In order to avoid vetoes by Russia and China at the Security Council, the US had to dilute a whole series of proposed punitive measures. An oil embargo which would have caused serious problems for Pyongyang has been replaced by a plan to reduce oil exports to the country in the future. Proposed restrictions on North Koreans working abroad – an important source of foreign exchange – have been ditched as has a naval blockade to ensure that existing UN sanctions are being enforced. Even the supposed assets freeze on Kim Jong-un, portrayed as the pantomime villain of the piece, and his cronies, has been dropped.

It is ironic that it was Nikki Haley who had to acquiesce to these concessions. She had been matching Trump on aggressive rhetoric ever since being appointed America’s UN envoy with not a week going by without her warning of dire consequences to adversaries, be they Russia, China, the Assad regime in Syria and, of course, North Korea.

As it happens, the sanctions adopted at the UN are stronger than those before with some additional steps such as the prohibition on sales of natural gas to Pyongyang. But the hyperbole previously used by Haley has meant that what came is viewed as a setback for Washington. It was interesting to hear the change in Haley’s tone. Last week North Korea was “begging for war”. On Monday it became the much more emollient “If it [North Korea] agrees to stop its nuclear programme it can reclaim its future. If it proves it can live in peace, the world can live in peace with it.”

Pyongyang, which has matched Trump threat for threat, declared that new sanctions will lead to “forthcoming measures to be taken which will cause the US the greatest pain and suffering it has ever gone through in its entire history” without specifying what form this would take. It did not carry out another test at the weekend, as had been expected. Instead, perhaps told about the watering down of the UN sanctions by his Chinese allies, Kim Jong-un held a party for senior figures involved in his nuclear programme. This was not the first time that he had wrong footed his foes – the much publicised supposed firing of missile towards Guam last month did not take place either.

North Korea’s leader appears to be safe for the time being. After all, Muammar Gaddafi is unlikely to have been toppled and lynched if he had not given up his weapons of mass destruction in the hope of better relations with the West. And Saddam Hussein may not have ended up in the hangman’s noose if he actually had actually kept his WMDs, rather than that being an invention by people around George W Bush and Tony Blair.

US: North Korea could be met with 'massive military response'
I recall seeing Gaddafi’s body, along with that of his son Mutassim, lying on the floor of a meat warehouse in Misrata and also covering Saddam’s trial in Baghdad which ended with the death sentence. One suspects that Kim Jong-un’s nuclear arsenal and missiles will ensure that he does not meet the lethal fate of his fellow dictators.

As the prospect of a Korean conflict receded further and the damage from the hurricanes in the US did not have the worst impact feared, share prices rose internationally. There was a further boost when South Korea’s foreign minister, Kang Kyung-wha, stated that despite some reports to the contrary, Seoul has not discussed stationing nuclear missiles on its land with the US administration.

The military options against North Korea’s regime are limited and none are without risk, as James Mattis and Rex Tillerson has been pointing out to Congress privately for the last few weeks even as Trump talked about the “new and beautiful equipment” which was supposedly being delivered to the US military each day and could, if necessary, be used against Pyongyang.

In particular the Defence Secretary and Secretary of State stressed that extensive air strikes would not guarantee hitting all the regime’s missiles and nuclear warheads while Pyongyang could wreak devastation on the South with just its conventional weapons. A land offensive against the Peoples’ Army of a million troops as well as six million reserves and paramilitary would need a bigger operation than one for the Iraq invasion.

Key moments in North Korea's nuclear programme
There are, nevertheless, some military repercussions to the crisis. Both South Korea and Japan will both be upgrading its military. Seoul acknowledged that it has gaps in its countermeasures against the North’s missiles, with or without the American THAAD deployment. One answer may be to buy an upgraded version of Patriot, which Japan already possesses. In Tokyo, Shinzo Abe will be helped in his mission of changing the mind set of pacifism enshrined in the Japanese constitution since the Second World War. The country’s defence budget has increased for the sixth year running.

This is great news for Trump, who has his own mission of expanding US arms exports as he volubly declared in Saudi Arabia during his first trip to the Middle East as President. He has stated on Twitter that he is in favour of Japan and South Korea buying “substantially increased amount of highly sophisticated equipment from the United States”. The White House subsequently announced that “billions of dollars” of arms could be involved.

READ MORE
UN Security Council passes toughest-ever sanctions against North Korea
North Korea warns US will pay 'heavy price' for sanctions
US ambassador to UN admits North Korea sanctions may not work :rotfl:

The weaponry, however, is viewed as deterrence rather than for offence. As we have seen, Russia and China are not going to agree to tougher sanctions. These would not be effective, held Vladimir Putin, as “They will rather eat grass than give up their nuclear programme unless they feel safe”. He presumably meant that Kim Jong-un would be prepared to let his people eat grass rather than take up that diet for himself and his cronies.

There is a general acceptance that talks need to take place. The North Koreans have, for long, wanted bilateral ones with the Americans, something Washington and its allies have steadfastly refused, holding that doing so would be rewarding bad behaviour. There are calls for a regional conference and that seems to make sense. But Moscow, and in particular Beijing, need to ensure that Pyongyang starts to negotiate seriously with the international community. Trump needs to desist from colourful threats of annihilation. Making them, and then failing to act, will further embolden Kim Jong-un.


PS: Absolutely! If Kim the latest had no N-dick,the US and SoKo troops would've invaded a long time ago.What China's reaction to that is anyone's guess.most probably "deja vu ...al over again" (Yogi Berra),another Yalu River episode. One is sure that this signal lesson has been heard loud and clear in Teheran and despite the n-deal with the West,the Iranians must be secretly assembling their "weapon of last resort",as insurance against any US/NATO.Israeli strike against them. Fortunately for Iran,the country is vast,population avowedly anti-West/US,and they have a great mil capability and a "desert Rommel" in the form of Gen. Qasem Suleimani,whose "groundwork" in Syria and Iraq is legendary.It will be a tall order for any invading/striking force nd Iran could cause abso havoc closing the Gulf to tanker traffic.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47330
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby ramana » 12 Sep 2017 21:29

Philip, The China Affairs editor of BBC has raised the point that NoKo and China have the same goal of eliminating US troop presence from Korean peninsula.
That's her viewpoint.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8340
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby UlanBatori » 12 Sep 2017 22:34

The idea of "latent nuclear power" is very interesting. Remember that the CTBT was based on the fact that the US believed it had enough data from 1000+ explosions, to do future development using simulations, with enough certainty of success. The US can easily give that computer program to a flunkistan such as, say, Panama or Grenada and in 6 mo. they will have "their own" thermonukes. Same can work easily with Iran, they already have their own delivery systems.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19470
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby Austin » 13 Sep 2017 12:36

North Korea nuclear yield estimated at 250 kilotons: US monitor

North Korea’s latest nuclear test probably had a yield of 250 kilotons, more than 16 times the size of the US bomb that destroyed Hiroshima in 1945, says US monitoring group

http://www.livemint.com/Politics/6KiSfY ... -moni.html
Seoul: North Korea’s latest nuclear test probably had a yield of 250 kilotons, much higher than official estimates, a US monitoring group said Wednesday.

Pyongyang conducted its sixth and largest nuclear test last week—saying it was a hydrogen bomb that could be fitted into a missile—prompting global condemnation and heightening tensions over its weapons ambitions.

The US Geological Service put the magnitude of the resulting earthquake at 6.3, and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO) and Norwegian agency NORSAR had raised their initial figures to 6.1.

As a result, the respected US website 38 North, which is linked to Johns Hopkins University, said it was raising its estimate for the yield of the blast to “roughly 250 kilotons”. The figure is more than 16 times the size of the 15-kiloton US bomb that destroyed Hiroshima in 1945.

“This large explosive yield is also quite close to what 38 North had previously determined to be the maximum estimated containable yield for the Punggye-ri test site,” said 38 North.


Governmental estimates of the yield vary from South Korea’s 50 kilotons to Japan’s 160. US officials have said they are still assessing whether it was an H-bomb, also known as a thermonuclear weapon, but that “so far there is nothing inconsistent with the North Korean claim that this was a hydrogen bomb”.

According to 38 North, satellite pictures from last Friday, five days after the test, showed new activity in alternate tunnel portal areas at the Punggye-ri test site including parked trucks, mining carts and other equipments. “Onsite work could now be changing focus to further prepare those other portals for future underground nuclear testing,” it said.

Pyongyang has staged a series of missile tests in recent months that appeared to bring much of the US mainland into range, followed by the 3 September nuclear blast. It prompted the UN Security Council to adopt its eighth set of sanctions on North Korea, but previous resolutions have done little to halt Pyongyang’s weapons ambitions.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19470
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby Austin » 13 Sep 2017 16:54

NoKo withdraw from NPT way back in 94 so they have not broken any rules in having Nukes , Unlike say Iran who was suspected of having program being a NPT member ......Now you can argue UNSC had some resolution but it soveriegnity of any nation comes first.

If not for Nukes and its own independent Missile program Noko would be like Eryqe or Libya , Atleast that much Kim would have realised how the West Back Stabbed Gadaffi when he gave up nuke and missile program and Saddam too

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8340
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby UlanBatori » 14 Sep 2017 01:05

US policy has been that NoKo+nuke+ICBM is unacceptable. No if or but about it. Is Trump going to wimp out?


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anandsgh, bharotshontan, srinebula and 52 guests