A confidential Defense Intelligence Agency intelligence asessment has concluded that North Korea has miniaturized a nuclear warhead to make it capable of being launched by its ballistic missiles:
The analysis, completed last month by the Defense Intelligence Agency, comes on the heels of another intelligence assessment that sharply raises the official estimate for the total number of bombs in the communist country's atomic arsenal. The United States calculated last month that up to 60 nuclear weapons are now controlled by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Some independent experts think the number is much smaller.
[...] Although more than a decade has passed since North Korea's first nuclear detonation, many analysts thought it would be years before the country's weapons scientists could design a compact warhead that could be delivered by missile to distant targets. But the new assessment, a summary document dated July 28, concludes that this critical milestone has been reached.
"The IC [intelligence community] assesses North Korea has produced nuclear weapons for ballistic missile delivery, to include delivery by ICBM-class missiles," the assessment states, in an excerpt read to The Washington Post. Two U.S. officials familiar with the assessment verified its broad conclusions. It is not known whether the reclusive regime has successfully tested the smaller design, although North Korea officially claimed last year that it had done so.
Meanwhile, President Trump and Kim Jong Un have traded barbs:
President Donald Trump appears to have painted himself into a corner: He must now follow up on his pledge of hitting North Korea with "fire and fury," or he risks further blowing U.S. credibility.
Kim Jong-un's regime said late on Tuesday that it may strike Guam. That came shortly after Trump warned Pyongyang it would face "power, the likes of which this world has never seen before" if the renegade state continued to threaten the U.S.
"If the red line he drew today was 'North Korea cannot threaten the U.S. anymore,' that line was crossed within an hour of him making that statement," said John Delury, associate professor of Chinese studies at Seoul-based Yonsei University.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @04:57PM (6 children)
You, and others, are dramatically underestimating the challenge of combat. We've lost thousands of soldiers in Iraq to guerrilla forces that are literally using WW2 era rifles and home made explosives. And their entire forces are a minuscule fraction of what North Korea has. Literally 30% [wikipedia.org] of North Korea's population is part of their military. Think about that. 1 out of 3 people in that country are active or reserve military that likely are armed, or have access to arms, and have military training. There would indeed be a rifle behind every blade of grass. Start mass bombing civilians and you may inflict some casualties but you also live up to every bit of propaganda and galvanize the entire nation against you.
Russia and China also border North Korea. They're not going to sit passively by while the US sets up a puppet government and military installations on their border. I think invading North Korea would likely be our biggest disaster since Vietnam. For that matter, I think many people don't really understand this. We lost Vietnam unambiguously. In the Korean War we attempted to invade North Korea and lost there unambiguously. War isn't just about who has the bigger budget. What exactly is the plan for winning a war in a country where you have a large armed population that hates you, vast area of terrain favorable for guerrilla warfare, a government that is likely well prepared for aerial onslaught. Oh yeah, and they have nukes. Unlike Iraq where we lied through our teeth about it, I doubt we're going to be anxious to have any meaningful land forces in a nation that would be happy to use those nukes.
Finally, aside from the war - there are also other issues. If the US preemptively attacks North Korea and North Korea retaliates by striking our close ally South Korea, the blame for that lays in large part with Trump. It would likely be the largest loss of life in any single attack. And in any case it is something that we risk unifying the entire world against us for. A country willing to knowingly initiate a conflict knowing completely well that it would likely lead to the first modern nuclear war is an enormous risk to the safety and stability of this entire planet. There would be severe international consequences for this action.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @05:54PM
And you seem to be completely ignorant about the true nature of war. [youtube.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Thursday August 10 2017, @06:37PM (4 children)
Unambiguously? Uh, no. The U.N. task force took most of North Korea; the only reason they got driven back to the 38th parallel was China intervening.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @07:26PM (3 children)
Right:
- Phase 1: US+South Korea vs North Korea. We get crushed.
- Phase 2: UN + US + South Korea vs North Korea. We do well.
- Phase 3: UN + US + South Korea vs North Korea + limited Chinese force. We get pushed back.
- Phase 4: More or less a stalemate.
This in no way goes against what I stated. That our attempt to try to invade North Korea was a disaster is not ambiguous. Now, like then, invading North Korea will all but certainly provoke a response from China and Russia. Though really it might not even be necessary. Arguably one of the main reasons we were able to hold on was because of complete air superiority. We leveled North Korea who had no real reinforcement or defense against air assaults. That was more than 6 decades ago, and is no longer the case. And their military has greatly expanded since then as well. War against North Korea is something I think not even Trump would realistically consider. There's no realistic and clear path to victory. It would also be a direct threat to China and Russia.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Phoenix666 on Thursday August 10 2017, @09:45PM (1 child)
There were equally dire predictions about how difficult it was going to be to expel Saddam from Kuwait. Nope. Turns out a modern, well-trained multi-disciplinary military like the US's can run circles around the largest of 3rd world armies. In fact it was that little example that put China on its rushed force modernization path.
There was an equally dire prediction about Afghanistan after 9/11: "The Graveyard of Empiresssss!!!!" OMG the Mujaheddin totally kicked the Russians' ass it will be slaughter for America oh dear oh dear oh dear. Nope. Easy pickings. The only reason it's been difficult is because we've wanted to occupy the place. If you don't want to occupy the place, only crush it utterly and leave it to somebody else to pick up the pieces, you're not really gonna take a lot of casualties by bombing people like the Mujaheddin from the air.
North Korea has a lot of artillery. America has lots of bombs and lots of planes NK's air defense won't even see coming. Sub-launched missiles can clobber a country that is conveniently surrounded by water. Even without nuclear weapons NK would be reduced to rubble quickly. If there's no China willing to weigh in with human wave attacks against SK, there just isn't a whole lot any of them, China, Russia, or NK could do against American forces. Not to mention that it would be incredibly stupid of China to risk open war with America before it's good and ready to do that, just to save a wackjob basket case like NK. They'd take more economic damage from disrupting the trade status quo than they ever gain from being NK's pal.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @03:45AM
Iraq is actually a good example. Modern Iraq. Except:
- Increase the population density of Iraq by about 400%.
- Increase the number of civilians with military training by about 3000%.
- Change the terrain to one that is infinitely better for guerrilla warfare.
- Change the covert supporting countries from backwards impoverished Islamic nations to Russia and China.
- Vastly increase aerial defenses.
The only reason Korean war was a stale mate instead of a complete victory for North Korea was air superiority. 6 decades ago we were able to destroy North Korea by air. Thanks to defector accounts US intelligence has learned of underground bunkers and shelters that number in the thousands. This includes completely underground military bases that even go beneath mountains and are designed to shelter enter cities in case of emergencies. You'll mostly destroy civilians with arbitrary bombings ensuring the country is more galvanized and unified than ever before. They get 24/7 propaganda of the western devil who in turn responds by preemptively murdering their civilians. That's going to turn out great...
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday August 11 2017, @02:47PM
You obviously need a better dictionary. Phases 2 and 4 make it clearly not unambiguous.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"