# North Korea fires sub launched ballistic missile



## Red-Dot (May 10, 2015)

This son of a bitch needs to go away.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/09/us-northkorea-submarine-idUSKBN0NU02V20150509


----------



## Kraut783 (May 10, 2015)

The UN should send a very strong worded letter saying they violated the UN sanctions.  That should take care of it.... :wall:

"North Korea is under United Nations sanctions banning it from developing or using ballistic missile technology."


----------



## TLDR20 (May 10, 2015)

Red-Dot said:


> This son of a bitch needs to go away.
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/09/us-northkorea-submarine-idUSKBN0NU02V20150509



I wonder if it was real. I thought there was some question as to the veracity of the claim.


----------



## Red-Dot (May 10, 2015)

I would suspect it is factual. Hopefully we have a Los Angeles class right behind it getting ready to shove a torpedo up its ass.


----------



## Kraut783 (May 10, 2015)

True, as with Iran, North Korea likes playing the shell game.


----------



## AWP (May 10, 2015)

Launching a missile and living long enough to do so are two different things. We used to track Russian (much quieter and probably better crews) subs from the yard through their entire deployment. P-3 and P-8 squadrons will love this and our new subs could find and smoke these clowns in a heartbeat.

Every minute past 24 hours at sea would be a small victory for the doomed crew.


----------



## pardus (May 10, 2015)

There is a part of me that wants to see a conflict kick off against NK. We would crush crush them and stabilize the peninsula.


----------



## TLDR20 (May 10, 2015)

pardus said:


> There is a part of me that wants to see a conflict kick off against NK. We would crush crush them and stabilize the peninsula.



Just like we stabilized the ME by crushing Iraq? I read a pretty interesting book about NK and why they do things like this missle test. The book also offered a great deal of insight into what reconciliation would look like. It would be very hard on the south to truly have reconciliation.

http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Real_North_Korea_Life_and_Politics_i.html?id=8OCp8CA9BcgC


----------



## pardus (May 11, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> Just like we stabilized the ME by crushing Iraq? I read a pretty interesting book about NK and why they do things like this missle test. The book also offered a great deal of insight into what reconciliation would look like. It would be very hard on the south to truly have reconciliation.
> 
> http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Real_North_Korea_Life_and_Politics_i.html?id=8OCp8CA9BcgC



Apples and oranges. Why? South Korea. 
Not to mention that China would be involved at some level with the reunification of north and south. Also the USA, probably Japan and others would pump money into the place to ensure it was successful.


----------



## DA SWO (May 11, 2015)

War with Korea would be bloody and unlike we have seen in 50 plus years.
Both sides would use SOF prior to the conventional start, and our dependents would cause additional distractions.

We were headed down this road when Clinton was President, and Carter intervened; I am still trying to decide if that was a good or bad intervention.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (May 11, 2015)

Honestly if things did go to absolute hell on the peninsula I don't see us being able to get involved much unless we are attacked first. That would give us pretext to deal with this issue once and for all. Baring that, if the NK regime were to suddenly collapse per say, the Chinese would rush in real quick. The last thing they want is a unified, pro-US Korea right on their border. Even if we did end up invading we would have to work something out with the Chinese. Also, most South Koreans are afraid that reunification will mean basically taking in millions of North Koreans who are malnourished, have no job skills, no REAL education, no money, and would become a drag on society that would fuck up the country. It's a pretty messy situation overall.


----------



## Ranger Psych (May 18, 2015)

This was worthy of repeating:

_* Oh no! Best korea has reached 1960s tech levels! What ever will we do?

Weep for them because they're about to go through counterculture? *_


----------



## Scotth (May 18, 2015)

Having to fix the mess that is North Korea is not in our best interest.  Like Johnny said, China wants North Korea as a border buffer zone and doesn't want us involved.

North Korea is a petulant little child and wants attention so it can demand some international aid.  Better to ignore them and just let them throw their tantrum in the corner.


----------



## pardus (May 18, 2015)

Scotth said:


> Having to fix the mess that is North Korea is not in our best interest.  Like Johnny said, China wants North Korea as a border buffer zone and doesn't want us involved.
> 
> North Korea is a petulant little child and wants attention so it can demand some international aid.  Better to ignore them and just let them throw their tantrum in the corner.



Until that tantrum involves a nuclear weapon...


----------



## Red Flag 1 (May 18, 2015)

pardus said:


> Until that tantrum involves a nuclear weapon...



^^^^^and there-in lies the great worry. A petulant 12 year old, who executes his senior advisors with AA  weapons for falling to sleep in a meeting, has nukes to play with.


----------



## AWP (May 18, 2015)

The sad/ funny thing is if he or that little rathole of a country ever used a nuke, I don't think we'd respond in kind. At that point our nation's participation in the Mutually Assured Destruction "pact" with other nations becomes null and void. Perhaps what's even worse is that he couldn't use it against the US. Our troops in SK or Japan would probably be a part of the carnage, but not a US state. If they nuked a country and we didn't respond with a nuke, even if we eventually invaded and owned that place like a boss, what does that tell our allies? The US met it's obligations without stooping to NK's level or the US honored defense treaties with "half measures?" Do we go to the UN and make our case or does every nation on the planet recognize the use of a nuke allows us to forgo the pleasure of a UN Resolution?

I don't know the answers but I think their use of a nuke is less of a problem for us than the political ramifications (or "fallout" if you prefer) following the appearance of a mushroom cloud somewhere in Asia.


----------



## Scotth (May 18, 2015)

pardus said:


> Until that tantrum involves a nuclear weapon...



The tantrum is not because of recklessness, it has a purpose.  Pay attention to us and eventually the world community, meaning the US, will offer them a package of aid including money and food to shut them up.  They have been making the same play over and over again for the last half century.  They know the American press will make an eventual big enough stink about North Korea that is will force some administration to make a deal with them just to make them temporarily go away.

Similar thing for Iran.  They don't pursue nuclear weapons to destroy Israel or some other reckless purpose.  They know launching a nuclear attack at Israel would ensure their own complete destruction from Israel alone much less what the US and other nations would do in retaliation.  There is no scenario were they could "win" that kind of engagement.  They pursue nuclear weapons to avoid invasion, pure and simple.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (May 18, 2015)

Scotth said:


> The tantrum is not because of recklessness, it has a purpose.  Pay attention to us and eventually the world community, meaning the US, will offer them a package of aid including money and food to shut them up.  They have been making the same play over and over again for the last half century.  They know the American press will make an eventual big enough stink about North Korea that is will force some administration to make a deal with them just to make them temporarily go away.
> 
> Similar thing for Iran.  They don't pursue nuclear weapons to destroy Israel or some other reckless purpose.  They know launching a nuclear attack at Israel would ensure their own complete destruction from Israel alone much less what the US and other nations would do in retaliation.  There is no scenario were they could "win" that kind of engagement.  They pursue nuclear weapons to avoid invasion, pure and simple.



That holds up to a certain extent, at least as far as Iran goes. I'm not saying the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameni isn't a politician first, but he like anyone else regardless of his position has political adversaries and political hardliners that he has to deal with. Some of those guys really are true, die hard believers in exporting the Islamic revolution, taking out Israel, attacking the great satan, blah blah blah. Fanatics like that you cannot predict to what extremes they will go to. It would be simple enough for them to make a nuke and give it to a proxy force to be used against whomever they want. Like any government, theirs is not one big harmonious organization where all the parts are aware of what the others are doing. With how deeply entrenched the IRGC is in every facet of the Iranian govt, it would not shock me to see them play a destabilizing move like that. Especially if it was against their biggest rivals, the Saudis. 

North Korea is different, but to another extent. I agree that this sort of thing is partly the usual saber rattling in wanting to get aid and sanctions relief, but think about it another way. They can do that in a variety of ways, and spending hard currency, technology, and research into sub based missile systems is not a practical way to do that. You do that sort of thing as either a form of deterrence or as a form of first strike capability. The main concern with NK and it's leader is we simply don't know to what extent he is in touch with reality. There is not as far as I'm aware any way of fully knowing if he understands the ramifications of engaging in a nuclear exchange with the US, and if he is not so wrapped up in his own world that he doesn't believe in the bullshit his dad and grandpa propagated for decades. Keep in mind Hitler believed in a total victory up until the last few days before he put a round through his head. Mad men in charge of nations have often had a history of being isolated from the truth of the world around them and surrounded by yes men who's power is reliant on that of the leader and keeping him happy. 

Guess what I'm trying to say is that while power politics, deterrence, and saber rattling do play a part when it comes to either Iran or NK, you also have to keep in mind that both nations and their leaderships are heavily comprised fanatics and radicals, which introduces a highly unpredictable and destabilizing element into the mix.


----------



## pardus (May 18, 2015)

Un is definitely a psychopath, probably a sociopath, and someone with no real grasp of reality. Who knows what he is capable of.

Look at WWI, it started with posturing and then under it's own unstoppable steam, became the most destructive war the world had ever seen.

Un needs a slapping to make him realize he is a big fish in a very small pond. A pond that can be fucked up at our discretion.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (May 19, 2015)

The recent behavior of Un, shows the world a snap shot of his hidden behavior. The decision to execute, as he did with AA fire, is bizare at best. It suggests a rush into extreme violence, over trivial events. Someone with this behavior profile, will be surrounded by brown nosed yes men. That said, he is totally removed from the real world. His actions/behaviors will always be supported and praised, by people that fear for their very lives. So what can we expect to see from Un, but more of the same. As long as he is alive, and in power, everyone around him live in extreme peril. He demands attention, and lavish praise. Senior staff members are expected to follow him around, with notebooks open, and writting down what he says. It is Un's view is that everything he says is of vital importance, and should be noted, revered, and worshiped. In short, we have an impulsive loon, with a fleeting grasp on reality, in charge of a nation's nukes. If he makes a misguided, incorrect decision to nuke someone, his advisors will lick his shoes in support, or else wind up being bodly strapped to said nuke as it approaches its detonation point. He will use the nukes, the question is when, and against who. His reason for the use of his WMD, will be mostly imagined/manufactured, and inaccurate. The next question is who, outside of D. Rodman, can make any difference in Un's  decision to use his nukess? The Chineese, the USA, maybe Putin?? My $.02 is a worried $.02. Back to my wee cave in The Valley.


----------



## Scotth (May 20, 2015)

Un also killed someone with a pack of dogs and executed a general with mortar fire in the past.

It reeks more of desperation then instills fear in me.  Give me an Al Capone type with a bat willing to get messy sending the message himself.  Those are the types of people I fear.  This kid doesn't scare me at all, he is all about trying to impress with the message.


----------

