North Korea unveils new missile - thoughts?

[Bulletpoint]

North Korea: What we know about the 'massive' new missile on parade

A defence expert explains why a new missile displayed at a military parade is a threat to the US.

www.bbc.com

[...] the design makes North Korea's intentions very clear: they do not need to increase the range of their missiles anymore.

Instead, they are focusing on trying to launch multiple nuclear warheads on a single missile. This would be yet another blow to the already struggling US missile defence systems, because for each incoming warhead, multiple interceptors need to be launched.

 

[Badger73]

<snipped>
Instead, they are focusing on trying to launch multiple nuclear warheads on a single missile. This would be yet another blow to the already struggling US missile defence systems, because for each incoming warhead, multiple interceptors need to be launched.

Nuclear MIRV's (Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicles) have been around since the 1970's. Anti-missile counter-measures against them are several decades old. One shouldn't assume that US defense systems would necessarily struggle against them. I would be quite content, though, that we might never find out for certain.

However, in North Korea's isolated zero-sum economy, the internal debates whether "guns or butter" apparently deem that an already distressed DRPK agriculture provides even less to feed it's "sound and healthy" people.

 

[HOA_KSOP]

They have internal debate in North Korea? I’m thinking not likely.

I’m thinking the size of that missile is to compensate for Kim’s other shortcomings...

 

[Bulletpoint]

Anti-missile counter-measures against them are several decades old. One shouldn't assume that US defense systems would necessarily struggle against them.

I didn't know you had defence against ICBMs actually. Thought that project had been mothballed in favour of systems that can intercept short/medium range missiles and mortars, such as with the Israeli Iron Dome system.

 

[Bulletpoint]

I would be quite content, though, that we might never find out for certain.

I sure hope not. Goes without saying.

And I don't think it will ever be put to the test. North Korea built those things to be untouchable, and that's now achieved.

However, I find it really dangerous to have little tinpot dictators gain nuclear weapons with that kind of reach. He might not be interested in using them now, as they are for self defence. But what happens if some day he gets told he has an incurable brain tumour and few months left to live? He might decide to go out with a bang, who knows. There are no checks and balance on their use.

 

[HOA_KSOP]

I sure hope not. Goes without saying.

And I don't think it will ever be put to the test. North Korea built those things to be untouchable, and that's now achieved.

However, I find it really dangerous to have little tinpot dictators gain nuclear weapons with that kind of reach. He might not be interested in using them now, as they are for self defence. But what happens if some day he gets told he has an incurable brain tumour and few months left to live? He might decide to go out with a bang, who knows. There are no checks and balance on their use.

I think he is a puppet for Chinese ambitions. There are a limited number of countries that can manufacture rocket fuel and North Korea is not one of them. So he has to be getting rocket fuel from somewhere. My guess is Russia and /or China. The Chinese are using kim to upset US policy in Asia. He is making Japan and South Korea, long stalwart US allies, very, very nervous. If it does not look like the US is firmly committed to mutual defense, the US position in Asia is weakened. There's a reason Japan is changing their constitution and laws to change from being a "self-defense" force to a force that can deploy overseas.

 

[Badger73]

I think he is a puppet for Chinese ambitions. <snipped>

I'm not so sure anymore, although it is really hard to tell because that relationship is so opaque.
I thought that a lot of North Koreans have and are defecting accross their mutual border into China without the Chinese forcing them back. I suspect Dear Leader Kim is a mostly childish pain in the ass to President Xi. I may be incorrect.

 

[HOA_KSOP]

I'm not so sure anymore, although it is really hard to tell because that relationship is so opaque.
I thought that a lot of North Koreans have and are defecting accross their mutual border into China without the Chinese forcing them back. I suspect Dear Leader Kim is a mostly childish pain in the ass to President Xi. I may be incorrect.

I am probably incorrect, but I also know diplomacy rhymes with duplicity, so who knows...

 

[Bulletpoint]

I'm no expert either, but I find it very hard to believe a nation as powerful as China would not secure good control - not just influence - over a small but strategically important neighbour such as North Korea. In much the same way as South Korea has always been dependent on the USA.

 

[Gunner]

Is this crazy talk, do you think it would be possible to finally sign a peace treaty with them and just leave them be?
I wonder if they would sign it and I wonder how the South would feel about it.
Of course that would end all hope of the two Koreas ever joining in to one country again.
Would, over time, money would win out and they would become trading partners ala China and Vietnam?

My brother thinks if we were to pull out of South Korea the North would invade the South again.

 

[HOA_KSOP]

Is this crazy talk, do you think it would be possible to finally sign a peace treaty with them and just leave them be?
I wonder if they would sign it and I wonder how the South would feel about it.
Of course that would end all hope of the two Koreas ever joining in to one country again.
Would, over time, money would win out and they would become trading partners ala China and Vietnam?

My brother thinks if we were to pull out of South Korea the North would invade the South again.

You know why US troops are in Korea? I have been told it’s to keep the South from invading the North.

 

[Badger73]

I'm no expert either, but I find it very hard to believe a nation as powerful as China would not secure good control - not just influence - over a small but strategically important neighbour such as North Korea. In much the same way as South Korea has always been dependent on the USA.

I've heard that on the international stage, a nation's "power" is greater potentially than it is actually. Once you start using it in one place, you've lost the ability to apply power elsewhere.
Koreans, both North and South, have a long history of enmity with China (as does VietNam and most of Southeast Asia. They have unhappy memories for times of Chinese Hegemony.

As for big nations "controlling" smaller ones, that didn't work out so well during the 1970's USA in Vietnam, 1980's Russia in Afghanistan, nor 21st Century USA in Iraq.
It's sometimes as simple as "Conquest is easy. Control is not."

"Dependency" on the other hand is entirely different and much more nuanced.

 

[Bulletpoint]

Koreans, both North and South, have a long history of enmity with China (as does VietNam and most of Southeast Asia. They have unhappy memories for times of Chinese Hegemony.

I thought Korea had only been under Japanese occupation? Unless we go back to the time of the Mongols?

Even if Koreans historically disliked the Chinese, I'd think seventy years of brutal oppression and indoctrination would rewrite that history.

The founder of North Korea was a member of the Chinese Communist Party, and fought against the Japanese in a Chinese-led guerilla group. Later on, China entered the Korean War as an ally of North Korea. I don't see why they they would not have very close ties.

But if that's just a strong diplomatic influence or more direct control, I don't know.

 

[Badger73]

As I learned International Relations, nations have "interests". Such interests drive both internal and external national policies. While relationships may occasionally matter a great deal between heads of state, interests usually trump them when push comes to shove. Time passes; situations evolve, relationships change, old interests atrophy, new interests develop. Things ebb and flow. European colonialism dramatically dissipated after the Second World War. The "American Century" seems to have passed. China's current "Belt and Road" initiatives are far beyond anything Mao Zedong might have imagined. I suspect Danes might find current US and Chinese interests in Greenland somewhat bemusing, mostly perplexing, and possibly alarming.

If it helps to understand how I think East and Southeast Asians view each other and China, it might help to compare how Scandinavians occasionally view each other and Russia; the regular frictions which occur among them exist without hostility. Russian investment is welcome, Russian meddling is not.

But back to your original point about North Korea's MIRV missiles, I still think it is just another piece of evidence that not much has changed. North Korea remains a dangerous place and the suffering of it's population continues unabated.

 

[Bulletpoint]

But back to your original point about North Korea's MIRV missiles, I still think it is just another piece of evidence that not much has changed. North Korea remains a dangerous place and the suffering of it's population continues unabated.

Actually this was what I was thinking about with the original post. It seems the new missile is the final confirmation that the window of opportunity to change things in North Korea has now passed for good and that country is now locked into oppression and suffering for all foreseeable future.

I don't know what any country could have really done to change things though. The sanctions seem like just political signalling, since obviously they cannot be enforced unless China wants to shut the border. I doubt they do that.

 

[HOA_KSOP]

As I learned International Relations, nations have "interests". Such interests drive both internal and external national policies. While relationships may occasionally matter a great deal between heads of state, interests usually trump them when push comes to shove. Time passes; situations evolve, relationships change, old interests atrophy, new interests develop. Things ebb and flow. European colonialism dramatically dissipated after the Second World War. The "American Century" seems to have passed. China's current "Belt and Road" initiatives are far beyond anything Mao Zedong might have imagined. I suspect Danes might find current US and Chinese interests in Greenland somewhat bemusing, mostly perplexing, and possibly alarming.

If it helps to understand how I think East and Southeast Asians view each other and China, it might help to compare how Scandinavians occasionally view each other and Russia; the regular frictions which occur among them exist without hostility. Russian investment is welcome, Russian meddling is not.

But back to your original point about North Korea's MIRV missiles, I still think it is just another piece of evidence that not much has changed. North Korea remains a dangerous place and the suffering of it's population continues unabated.

I don't think they have MIRV's. What I think they might be doing is what the Russian's did years ago - create huge rockets to lift massive single warheads because they don't have the guidance capability that would be required to get a smaller warhead within a given "kill" radius. The Russians originally had huge yield warheads on huge missiles because they probably couldn't get their warheads delivered within a kilometer of their desired target. If you have a warhead that can flatten everything within a 10 km radius, you need a big missile to lift it and if you miss by 9 km, who cares, you still flatten your target. With the Russians and Chinese, I would think their guidance tech is on par with ours nowadays, maybe a little less accurate, but close. Allegedly US warheads can hit pretty close to where they want them, say within 100 meters.