Skip to comments.N Korean missiles threaten US(ship/submarine-launched missile based on SSN6)
Posted on 08/03/2004 8:56:31 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
Report: N Korean missiles threaten US
03/08/2004 - 15:33:38
North Korea is deploying two new missile systems which could enable it to threaten the continental United States for the first time, Janes Defence Weekly reported today.
American officials had previously claimed that North Korea was developing missiles, based on the Soviet submarine-launched SSN6, which were capable of hitting the United States.
Janes said the new missiles, apparently based on SSN6, have a range of 1,500 miles or more.
The submarine-launched ballistic missile or ship-mounted version of this new system is potentially the most threatening, Janes reported.
It would fundamentally alter the missile threat posed by the DPRK and could finally provide its leadership with something that it has long sought to obtain - the ability to directly threaten the continental US.
North Korea gained some of the technical data for the system when it bought 12 decommissioned Russian Foxtrot-class and Golf II-class submarines from Japanese scrap dealers in 1993, Janes said.
Janes said North Korea is also believed to have had help from Russian missile manufacturer Makeyev.
One would think a North Korean Submarine would make speed from it's home port and never look back at it's six o'clock until it made safe harbor in America.
1500 miles won't threaten America. It would have to be more. They have a longer range missile that can reach Fairbanks and Anchorage, although what good that would do them is a mystery.
The idea is that the missile would be launched from a ship or submarine.
'The submarine-launched ballistic missile or ship-mounted version of this new system is potentially the most threatening, Janes reported.'
Those diesels won't have much of a chance. The minute they start runing their engines to charge batteries, we'll pick up the low level sound. They have to do that many times during their transit to firing range. That of course doesn't take into account any coast watchers/satellites that monitor their comings and goings.
I was thinking a N Kor ship or missile sub wouldn't be a threat long enough to make radio news on the hour. The missile, naval in origin, would be perfect for land launch. Always ready for instant launch, always targeted, reliable, and protected in a silo. The nuke warhead would be the high maintenance part of the system.
A forward-looking statement. N Kor would not bother to field the naval version. The land version, maybe, since it is cheap, reliable, etc.
You possess the intelligence analysis capabilities of George Tenet.
Thanks. I would apply for his job, but I plan to retire soon anyway.
From the instant that any of them leaves port, I'm quite certain that they'll have one of our nuke attack subs shadowing them (and they probably won't even know it).
You're probably right, if they can get in close enough and stay there.
Very true. Considering the fact that the CIA couldn't pick up India's nuclear explosions, what hope of picking up a diesel engine's hum?
A saying goes, "-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: CarrotAndStick I'm glad this man was vindicated...the snobbery of people "who know it all" kind of gives extra credance to Paul's remark that "thinking themselves wise they became fools instead."
24 posted on 08/03/2004 4:14:21 AM PDT by freepertoo [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
You need to sit up higher in your chair so the facts don't sail so far over your grape.
9/11 wasn't a military screwup. We've been tracking subs for decades, during peacetime. We are pretty good at it. All the military can do is that, and report when it gets within firing range, then await orders from "politicians" to take it out.
YEAH RIGHT do you the US Miltary is afraid of Little Kim I DOUBT IT on this news title
Actually way Kim Jong 11 been acting he is spoil little North Korea leader
He is just like a kid need get a***whoppin
This needs some work. Many retirees take jobs now and then, so it is possible I will not only continue to pollute the labor pool, but possibly even hire you.
N.B.: the objects we see change to suit our concepts.
From this tin can sailor's perspective, yes, they can and they will. I'll defer to any bubbleheads reading this to provide any further details on the capabilities of our fast attack boats. (They were incredible boats a couple of decades ago and I'm sure they've gotten a lot better over time.)
The CIA doesn't track subs; the Navy does. They did one he!! of a good job of it with the Russkies for decades.
They'd still be useful for a "bolt from the blue" type attack. We most likely are not going to sink their ships or subs operating on the open seas before hostilities start. Of course once they start, it won't matter because the birds will no longer be in the nest, so to speak.
N Kor comes late to the nuclear game. While N Kor was the site of the Japanese nuclear program during WW II, the effort lay dormant for a long time afterwards. They were first, but they are also last. They may not be aware that nukes cannot be used to blackmail other nuclear powers. Same for Iran. It will not be allowed.
Reuters hack at it.
New N. Korean Missiles Said to Threaten U.S.
BERLIN (Reuters) - North Korea (news - web sites) is deploying new land- and sea-based ballistic missiles that can carry nuclear warheads and may have sufficient range to hit the United States, according to the authoritative Jane's Defense Weekly.
In an article due to appear Wednesday, Jane's said the two new systems appeared to be based on a decommissioned Soviet submarine-launched ballistic missile, the R-27.
It said communist North Korea had acquired the know-how during the 1990s from Russian missile specialists and by buying 12 former Soviet submarines which had been sold for scrap metal but retained key elements of their missile launch systems.
Jane's, which did not specify its sources, said the sea-based missile was potentially the more threatening of the two new weapons systems.
"It would fundamentally alter the missile threat posed by the DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) and could finally provide its leadership with something that it has long sought to obtain -- the ability to directly threaten the continental U.S.," the weekly said.
Apart from targeting the United States, South Korea (news - web sites) or Japan, cash-strapped North Korea might seek to sell the technology to countries that have bought its missiles in the past, with Iran a prime candidate, the article added.
Ian Kemp, news editor of Jane's Defense Weekly, said North Korea would only spend the money and effort on developing such missiles if it intended to fit them with nuclear warheads.
"It's pretty certain the North Koreans would not be developing these unless they were intended for weapons of mass destruction warheads, and the nuclear warhead is far and away the most potent of those," he told Reuters.
NUCLEAR POTENTIAL UNCLEAR
North Korea pulled out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in January 2003 and is locked in long-running crisis talks with the United States, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea over terms for scrapping its atomic weapons program.
The extent of that program remains unclear, although North Korea's deputy foreign minister was quoted as telling a senior U.S. official last year that Pyongyang possessed nuclear weapons.
Jane's said the new land-based system had an estimated range of 2,500 to 4,000 km (1,560 to 2,500 miles), and the sea-based system, launchable from a submarine or a ship, had a range of at least 2,500 km.
"If you can get a missile aboard a warship, in particular aboard a submarine...you can move your submarine to strike at targets such as Hawaii or the United States, just as examples. Whereas it would be much more difficult to actually develop a ground-launched missile to achieve that sort of a range," Kemp said.
Until now only the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China have been known to possess submarine-launched nuclear weapons, although there has been speculation that Israel has a similar capability.
Jane's said North Korea appeared to have acquired the R-27 technology from Russian missile experts based in the Urals city of Chelyabinsk. It said one such group was detained in 1992 when about to fly to North Korea, but others visited later.
It said Pyongyang was also helped by the purchase, through a Japanese trading company, of 12 decommissioned Russian Foxtrot-class and Golf II-class submarines which were sold for scrap in 1993.
It said the missiles and electronic firing systems had been removed, but the vessels retained their launch tubes and stabilization sub-systems.
Bzzt. We do not sink ships in international waters without good and sufficient (i.e., readily demonstrated) cause.
The missile, naval in origin, would be perfect for land launch. Always ready for instant launch, always targeted, reliable, and protected in a silo. The nuke warhead would be the high maintenance part of the system.
Actually, the SS-N-6 is a "storable-liquid-fuel" missile with an evil reputation. It was the missile carried by that Yankee-class boat that blew up and sank off Bermuda in October 1986.
Actually, the "sinking the ship" part is easily covered.
"Oops! We're sorry. The CO of the USS Scorpion had NO IDEA that torpedo tube was LOADED."
Hard part would be keeping Rumsfeld from being TOO smug at the press briefing.
Isn't that just a difference in semantics here? I mean the CIA and the Navy ought to report each one's findings to the other. Now, as I perceive from your reply, if the CIA/ Navy's intel capabilities were so good, then what went so badly wrong with either of them when India detonated those nukes? Leave alone the simultaneous multiple hijackings of those planes on 9/11.
No problem then. They will blow up all on their own and sink. One thing, they might launch one missile, but then it would be over for them.
You ever spend any time monitoring the commercial sea traffic exiting Wonsan or Kimchaek? Didn't think so.
Not semantics at all. We're talking about tracking Korean nuclear-armed subs here. I'm quite certain that Navy intelligence does feed its sub tracking data and its electronic intercepts to the CIA. Indian nuke tests and 9/11 are totally unrelated to the Navy's task of tracking submarines.
There's probably a bubblehead or two around here who know quite a bit more about their capabilities than I do. I'll let them do their own bragging. :=)
I know the first man ashore at Inchon. He is older than me, but I would hire him. In fact, I did. People who think outside the box can be useful.
""They may not be aware that nukes cannot be used to blackmail other nuclear powers""
Err,what exactly did the Pakis do when India threaten to attack them twice in 2002(for terrorist acts in India)-but I must add that one is a Islamic dictatorship & the other is a secular democracy- so u can only expect rational behaviour from one.
Does causing an enemy to not attack constitute blackmail?
"they might launch one missile, but then it would be over for them"
One missile is all you need to reduce a city to rubble(strangulate millions if the warhead is lined with Toxins or nerve gas)-that's all there is to nuclear deterrence-it's as simple.There's no point retaliating with 10 nukes if your enemy launches 1 at you-he loses 10,you lose 1 million people( & trust me folks like the Pakis or North Korea or Iran won't mind that)
The North Koreans have around 6-10 nukes,so they get treated as royalty when compared to poor ol' Saddam.
the kimchee fumes are a dead giveaway and are detectable by spy satellites...
Sub Capt..."Hey boys...lets get the hell outta here...screw Kim".
"Does causing an enemy to not attack constitute blackmail?"
Nuclear blackmail is a very very flexible term( u use it to achieve various goals-aid,mediation,prevention of war) & it has only 2 known practicioners-Pakistan & North Korea-who 've both used it to the hilt & it is only succesful against democratic countries which are not prepared to waste the lives of their citizens.
Then give me one good reason
Why is'nt the US attacking North Korea ?
exactly. diesel pigboats are great as a close in line of defense, and suck seawater for long-range offense projection...
Oh i forgot there was a very extraordinary use of nuclear blackmail in 1973 during the Yom Kippur war.Israel was losing ground on the conventional war to Syria & Egypt & the Americans looked undecided.Moshe Dayan gave indirect indications(something like "End of the Third Temple") of authorisation for use of nukes.13 nukes were reportedly loaded onto artillery shells, Jericho missiles & F-4 bombers,targetted at Egypt,Damascus & Soviet bases.American spy satellites picked these movements & Kissinger got wind of it from the Israeli government & before you blinked your eyes,the American airlift of conventional weapons had started.
Well diesel boats equipped with AIP(Air independent propulsion) can stay under for over 2 weeks & most diesel-electric boats coming out now-the Russian Amur,French Scorpene,German Type-212/214 & Swedish Gotlands class have AIP modules attached.Besides you don't need long endurance especially if your on a oneway trip to Guam or Hawai which is not too far from North Korea.
so, i expect that any of their subs that strays too far from home port gets attention from us they probably didn't bank on.
I would not be surprised that one of our SSN's didn't "accidently" ram the piece of junk... this happened *all the time* between US and Soviet subs, between both sides and the Russians even believed for a while that this rough underwater rugby game contributed to their recent high-tech sub disaster...
These would be--one way trips for the North Koreans. Who is to say they would be used on a sub? They could be placed on a peaceful trade ship in a container. When the sky is cloudy--Container opens and out comes the rockets---bye bye San Francisco, LA and San Diego. Or maybe Pearl Harbor could be the Target. The EM Pulse will burn out computers and Telephones--America will be hurt bad. And the Koreans will say "Its Terrorists--we know kothing about it."
Sink the ship and there will be no evidence of where the attack came from. Maybe I ought to sell the idea to Tom Clancy???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.