With all the fuss about Iraq, it seems people are overlooking the North Korean problem. I think North Korea is by far a bigger threat to the US and allies than Iraq is.

North Korea has restarted its nuclear programme. It is thought to already have several nuclear warheads. The latest news is that it probably has at least a few missiles capable of reaching the US west coast from North Korea - with nuclear warheads.

Who's watching North Korea?

james they dont NEED those missiles

they have subs capable of launching a nuke which means they could strike ANYWHERE

North Korea can actually fight back... so the bully won't start
shoving that kid around... seem'sayin' ?

Iraq, on the other hand, is pretty much harmless... so there's
no harm in fucking around with them.

I hope my assumptions are correct :p

The NK issue has been brought before the UN General Assembly. Cuba and Russia, I believe, abstained from voting, and it was referred to the Security Council. They won't do much more than sanctions.

Now give me the logical reason why NK should not be nuclear armed?

i hope the "kid" bites

if enough "good guys" die then maybe the kids there wont

i feel sorry for every solder dispached

but then all you have to do to get out of it is refuse the vactine dont you?

i feel more sorry for ALL the inocent iraqies and that INCLUDES there solders

if it costs the lives of my own countrys solders to bring peace then so be it

North Korea has no nuke-carrying submarines and no submarine other than small and medium sized coastal ones.

http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/asiapac/n_korea.htm#1No nuclear subs

(solidus) I wonder if Der Rumsfeldmarshall ever sits up in bed at night and thinks this.

nah:p

According to the SBS World Guide 10th Edition, NK has 26 submarines. Same book says China has 71 subs. The lame-arse CIA World Factbook says nothing on equipment. Submarines, even non-nuclear ones, can carry missiles close to the USA coast. About all the "nuclear" bit does for you is extend the length of time you can remain underwater in a stretch.

I think a better point is that NK's subs do not appear to be designed for a trans-pacific mission or for running silent. Russia had much more sophisticated equipment, and we were still able to play cat and mouse with them.

Australia's old subs run silent. Russian subs run silent. So do American. They all do, if they are well-maintained and run by a good crew. I have hunted Los Angeles class submarines with a 25 year old sonar, and found it very easy to catch them. It depends on the crew, on the environment, et cetera.

Yes, NK's subs can cross the Atlantic quite easily. Subs were crossing the world in WW2 with no problems.

And no, the USA never "played cat and mouse" with the Russian subs. It was always more a game of cat and cat. I recall about 12 years ago, an LA class sub crashed into a Russian sub in Russian waters. Pathetic.

Adam I was on 688s. You would never hear us if we didn't want to get in reach of your actives. Long b4 that, we could kill U.:)

Yeah, subs are very scary, IF they have a good crew, and IF they don't make a mistake.

Originally posted by Adam
Yes, NK's subs can cross the Atlantic quite easily. Subs were crossing the world in WW2 with no problems.

Don't know why NK's subs would be in the Atlantic, but they sure aren't built to cross the Pacific. All they have are small and medium-size coastal subs, a few old Soviet Whiskey-class and some they built based on Soviet models. They are all torpedo carriers; no boomers. And even if they did attempt a trans-oceanic cruise I would imagine the ocean bed SOSUS system would detect them, even if an American LA class or frigate didn't find them first.

Oops, I meant Pacific.

Originally posted by Coldrake
Don't know why NK's subs would be in the Atlantic, but they sure aren't built to cross the Pacific. All they have are small and medium-size coastal subs, a few old Soviet Whiskey-class and some they built based on Soviet models. They are all torpedo carriers; no boomers. And even if they did attempt a trans-oceanic cruise I would imagine the ocean bed SOSUS system would detect them, even if an American LA class or frigate didn't find them first.

Romeo Class
Displacement: approx. 1,700 tons submerged
Dimensions: 76.6 x 6.7 x 4.95 meters (251 x 22 x 16 feet)
Propulsion: Diesel-electric, 2 diesels, 2 shafts, 2,700 shp, 13 knots
Crew: approx. 50
Sonar: Tamir-5L active, Feniks passive
Armament: 8 21 inch torpedo tubes (6 forward, 2 aft) (14 torpedoes or 28 mines) Chinese and North Korean boats built to a 1950's Soviet design.

Whiskey Class
Displacement: approx. 1,350 tons submerged
Dimensions: 76 x 6.3 x 4.8 meters (249 x 20.5 x 15.5 feet)
Propulsion: Diesel-electric, 2 diesels, 2 shafts, 2,500 shp, 17 knots
Crew: approx. 50
Sonar: Tamir-5 active, Herkules passive array
Armament: 6 21 inch torpedo tubes (4 forward, 2 aft) (12 torpedoes or 24 mines) Four ex-Soviet boats transferred 1974, Probably based on the East coast. Probably unservicable or confined to training operations.

U20, built in 1913
Displacement: approx. 837 tons submerged
Dimensions: 210 feet long, 20 feet abeam
Propulsion: 850 horsepower diesel engines
Crew: not sure
Armament: 4x19.7-inch torpedo tubes; 1x4.1-inch deck gun.

And yes, the U20 was capable of open sea work.

EDIT: You can turn an attack sub into a boomer (or Panther, in this case) with very little trouble. Our Defence Minister about ten years ago wanted to equip our old subs with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. You can either make missiles to fit the existing launch tubes, or install a vertical launch system.

The difference between those old diesel boats crossing the ocean in WWII and now is the advancements in sonar capability. SOSUS and IUSS make it difficult for a nuclear sub to cross the Pacific, much less a diesel.

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/sosus.htm

Diesel subs are as quiet as anything in the oceans. Why? They don't run on diesel underwater. They run on batteries. On a nuclear sub, however, you have a steam turbine churning away constantly.

PS: I recall now that Panther, in the Allied Brevity Codes, meant "enemy nuclear submarine", rather than "enemy nuclear-capable submarine".

Why should NK attack USA?

Because we beat them back in the Korean War, it is a fascist/communist regime, and because we will not bow under their threats of nuclear attacks. The dictator could decide that he wants to go out in a flash of glory, or at least follow through with his threats. He's got the nuclear weapons for something, you know.

I know he hasn't really threatened to attack us, but he will expect us to deal with him carefully, and will probably try to use his nukes to get things for himself.

Yes...extortion.

I can't find it any more, but I loved the cartoon of Kim Jong Il standing in an alley with tin cup and sandwich board sign that read "Will turn Souel into Sea of Fire for Food".