North Korea Might Put Nukes Aboard Submarines

War is Boring ^ | January 22, 2015 | Kyle Mizokami

[C19fan]

North Korea is attempting to put nuclear weapons to sea, according to a longtime regime watcher.

Joseph Bermudez—an expert on North Korean weapons—believes the evidence is commercial satellite imagery showing a submarine with possibly two vertical launch tubes. The regime also appears to have constructed a test stand for launching sea-based ballistic missiles.

The two revelations may not be directly related.

For one, the vessel might not end up carrying nuclear-capable missiles. But Bermudez’s evidence is highly suggestive. And if the North is planning to put nukes aboard submarines, this would make Kim Jong Un’s atomic arsenal more survivable in case of attack.

[C19fan]

I think a nuke on a Nork submarine would be more a first strike weapon because if a shooting war starts that sub would be sunk within 5 minutes by a US SSN keeping an eye on it.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

What could go wrong?

[logi_cal869]

An NK ‘first strike’ better occur before ‘16, because it would be suicide.

That stated, it’s a waste of time (missile tubes) for that purpose: A sub is a perfect delivery system if the intent is the prior...

[Logical me]

Not sure how America would combat. King Obama has weakened our defense so bad that a couple nukes that might get threw would throw Americans in such a confusion they would run for the toilet instead of fight. Have little faith in the intelligence level of millions of Americans.

[X-spurt]

So you are thinking the Norks are going to have stealth tech subs our attack boats won’t be right behind from day one?

The Norks better stick with their friends, the Iranian’s Magic Carpets.

[SampleMan]

The NORK midget subs aren’t that easy to find. That said, they are also totally incapable of launching a ballistic missile or conducting operations in the open sea. They are ambush and SOF vehicles. What they might be able to do is a suicide mission with the device as a integral part of the sub. Drive it into a harbor and detonate.

Frankly, I don’t think the NORKS have the technical ability to put a ballistic missile on any submarine, let alone their Romeos. Better odds that it sinks to the bottom when launched than that it completes a single patrol.

[Vendome]

Not even realistic.

[golux]

Yep.

[terycarl]

I can’t imagine getting aboard a submarine built by slave labor in North Korea......maybe they give each sailor a can of that tarry spray stuff that you see on T.V. that stops even a leak in the side of a pail.....

[logi_cal869]

‘Stealth’ is subjective, adaptive & tactical.

Why do you think the USN went so bat$h!t over AIP and leased the HSwMS Gotland? It was as much about post-Cold War tactics as it was the technology.

I’m not convinced it couldn’t be done quite easily (get a sub into one or, for that matter, more ports). My point was primarily that any ‘first-strike’ would be suicidal (save for under the current Unic in Chief) and that, as such, mounting missile tubes on subs seems silly when they could just put a bomb on a boat & blow it up in a port. But why even bother with that when the best strike would be to put 3 in the upper atmosphere, launched from ships rather than the technical problems of a sub launch?

IMHO, your comment couldn’t be more out of tune with asymmetrical thinking when compared with the terrorist ‘threat matrix pre-9/11. History speaks for itself there...