Bunch of crazy stuff people think is normal.

On April 9 – nine days ago – the Trump administration announced that it was sending an aircraft carrier and four accompanying vessels to Korean waters. The strike group was supposed to be doing exercises near Australia, but the administration was diverting it in anticipation of a possible North Korean missile test. The scary implication: The US was putting its warships in place in preparation for a possible strike on North Korea.

Except it turns out there was a bit of an oopsie: Despite Trump’s boast last week that he was “sending an armada” to North Korea, as of Saturday, the carrier group in question was still hanging out with the Australian navy off the coast of Indonesia – 3,500 miles from North Korea.

The US said this aircraft carrier was near North Korea.

“blert Says:
April 18th, 2017 at 5:03 pm

DNW

North Korea has a disturbingly effective submarine force.

Their latest strategic rocket is in the same family as our Polaris design.

They have already proved to be a nightmare to track.

Our defense depends on their primitive Diesel-electric propulsion. Their missile sub would have to surface repeatedly on its way to the launch point.”

You might be right, but I could not confirm that from what I have read in public sources.

In fact, they appear to have mostly midget subs meant for commando raids into the South; and some aging eastern block style submarines which might or might not be serviceable and might or might not be capable of effectively launching cruise missiles; and a handful of current crop, almost fleet sized boats which supposedly can launch missiles of the kind you mention.

Whether they must surface in order to do so, I don’t know. But the number of diesel electric ocean going boats they have with any capabilities seems small enough to track effectively and kill. If they are already at sea, they will be coming up for air. But they are likely constant blips on a targeting screen as we speak.

Any “Polaris” style missile they have, would according to the implication of news reports carry a conventional warhead since NK has not succeeded in miniaturizing nuclear warheads; something the US managed in 1958.

I suppose they might have cooked up something like the old Regulus which I was reading about in order to confirm my understanding.

In that case, if they could fit one of their boats with a cruise missile capable of carrying a 3000 lbs payload, and if it were nuclear, and if it worked, then they would be able to so more than bomb Los Angeles with a half ton of TNT delivered via a ballistic missile.

North Korea has a disturbingly effective submarine force.

Their latest strategic rocket is in the same family as our Polaris design.

They have already proved to be a nightmare to track.

Our defense depends on their primitive Diesel-electric propulsion. Their missile sub would have to surface repeatedly on its way to the launch point.

South Korea and Japan — and Guam — would be in the cross-hairs, though.

But the REAL headache is that everything Kim is doing is being financed by Tehran.

Iran has outsourced its atomic program to Syria and North Korea.

The Israelis were shocked at the Syrian connection. They blew it up, BTW.

Kim has one economic nightmare: oil imports. Iran is delighted to scratch that itch.

This tit-for-tat has hugely reduced Red China’s influence in Pyongyang.

Kim has a new strategic export, and it’s atomic ordnance.

He is an engine of proliferation… all by himself.

The choice for the West is a simple and horrific one. Act now with a high probability of millions of deaths or continue to kick the can down the road with an endpoint of hundreds of millions of deaths.

History consistently demonstrates which choice democracies make and the resultant consequences.”

My guess is the best case scenario would be a few tens of thousand in a semi decapitation to a few hundred thousand deaths in a more protracted and conventional American shock and awe strike.

In the latter: Seoul heavily damaged with rockets for a few hours, possibly an American ship or two sunk, a hundred thou North Korean soldiers killed quickly. They have no air force worth anything. I am sure their subs are all being tracked and could be wiped out quickly. No naval power. They have rockets, suicidally determined cannon fodder, and the threat of nuclear detonations.

Most of the country is a Potemkin village which is only intermittently electrified.

As I looked into it, it appears that 4 of their more famous hydro plants are joint operations with the Chinese. This could work either way when it comes to getting the power shut off to NK.

Others are in situations wherein they could be destroyed without international repercussions.

No problem destroying coal plants or power transmission lines. Their highway system is mostly unpaved.

The more closely one looks at it the more hollow NK looks. Lots of fierce faces and shouts. Lots of rocket launching tubes. No electricity, no food, no transport, no modern arms.

They have threatened to explode nuclear weapons in the U.S. Technically we are still at war with them.

Doesn’t look to be much selection.

But at what point does the DPRK turn, instead, into a liability?

The scenario in which the PRC’s men in the DPRKs leadership of which, my guess is, they have a few, stage a coup, take over the state’s apparatus and military, gets rid of their nuclear and other WMD capabilities, and slowly brings the country down into some sort of soft landing would be ideal, if it were possible.

It would certainly save millions of lives, and prevent wide spread and catastrophic destruction that would result if the DPRK started a war.

There have certainly been many successful coups in history but, I’d think that the possibility of a coup was the constant fear in dear leaders head, and that he has taken very elaborate steps to prevent one.

Could the U.S. insert say, Seal Team Six, into Pyongyang, and have them perform the decapitation?

Possible in a novel, not so possible in reality, and very likely a suicide mission with very little chance of success.

Balancing risk vs reward, though, if things got very dicey and an attack on the our regional allies or the U.S. were immanent, it might be worth a try.

A joint PRC-U.S. effort at a coup? Possibility?

In the ultimate “escalation” for dominance, it is undoubtedly the US that will win the military war.

It is what happens afterward that matters.

If it comes to that, it may well be trading one set of bad problems for another set of bad problems.

IF a war breaks out, that opens the door for our enemies on other fronts.

Regime change seems to be something that would work for both China and the West, without escalating into war.

Those are fair and astute questions. One does not hand a ‘gun’ to a mental patient. Both the USSR and especially China, view N. Korea as a ‘sacrificial pawn’ in communism’s struggle with the capitalist West.

The choice for the West is a simple and horrific one. Act now with a high probability of millions of deaths or continue to kick the can down the road with an endpoint of hundreds of millions of deaths.

History consistently demonstrates which choice democracies make and the resultant consequences.