asymetric warfare

Penta wrote in
:

[snip]

I know homing pigeons aren't, but I thought they weren't useful for
communications purposes?

They could be in some very limited circumstances.
Makes for a very lengthy OODA cycle though.
One has to wonder how robust the NKPA C3I systems
are. I suspect they probably have an extensive system
of buried land lines for the border region and my be
hoping that any resumption of the Korean police action
will be short and sharp. Effective resistance may depend
on being able to dodge the first spasm as the NKPA heads
south. Fortunately the relocation of forces necessary to
ensure this may now be politically palatable, at least to
the US.

One thing to remember about their artillery inventory.
Much of it is suspected to be buried in bunkers
and breakout tunnel positions. I suspect it won't
be all that vulnerable to counter battery on that
account. ROK/US assets will manage to get some of it but
even a target rich environment can be too much of a good
thing.

Ultimately though the only answer is to persuade the North
Korean leadership that they will be amongst the first
casualties if they choose to resume hostilities.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

In article ,
(John Schilling) wrote:

If they don't have a backup carrier-pigeon network, it's
because they are confident that they have alternate methods that are
even more robust in the face of all the usual US countermeasures.

....or they figure they're so screwed in the event of actual war that
they don't bother...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
a425couple writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill
Where does this quote come from?

His work "The Grand Alliance". Apparently, some felt that the British
declaration of war against Japan on 8 December 1941 was too formal and
insufficiently blood-curdling.

Thank you for your kind, helpful, and informative response.
Yes, I have found it now on page 514 of my edition.

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 13:21:04 -0800, Steve Hix
wrote:


That would be passenger pigeons, as of 1914.

scratchhead What's the difference?

On 29 Dec 2003 19:23:28 -0800, (John Schilling)
wrote:


Given their predilection for digging deep, I wonder if there's such a
thing as a carrier mole :-)

Thank you for giving the genetic engineering types yet ANOTHER
crazy idea...

First the Golden Rebeaver, now this...!

;-)

Chad Irby writes:

In article ,
(John Schilling) wrote:

If they don't have a backup carrier-pigeon network, it's
because they are confident that they have alternate methods that are
even more robust in the face of all the usual US countermeasures.

...or they figure they're so screwed in the event of actual war that
they don't bother...


Except that you are the only person on Earth with this inexplicable
belief. The NKPA has visibly devoted *enormous* effort to preparing
for actual war, such as carving out millions of cubic meters of hard
rock tunnels and fortifications, and you honestly think they are a
bunch of defeatists who can't be bothered to keep up a bunch of
pigeons or the equivalent?

They may not believe they can *win* a war, but they almost certainly
believe they can make the first day of that war really damned expensive
for the US and ROK. And they are almost certainly right - there's an
artillery tube every *fifty meters* along that border, dug in deep, and
the idea that the gunners are just going to sit around twiddling their
thumbs because we jam their radios and bomb their telephone exchanges,
is not terribly plausible.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

Chad Irby wrote:
...or they figure they're so screwed in the event of actual war that
they don't bother...

They are not stupid, and have plenty of successful combat
experience, albeit 50 years old.

They have *obviously* bothered over the last 50 years;
their military budget, clearly observable military construction,
etc all point to massive preparation work.

How effective is that? We don't know. It might all crumble to
dust if exposed to modern US and SK forces, or it might turn
out to be the worst thing we've had to fight since 1900.

We should not ascribe magic properties to their defensive
and offensive capabilities, but merely having tens of thousands
of artillery pieces along that border segment, essentially all
in bunkers or other hardpoints, is a calculus that requires
very significant threat level assumptions. If it hasn't
all rusted out, it's a very very dangerous thing.


-george william herbert

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:20:19 -0500, (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

Nothing is stopping them from putting 8 warheads in each of the 16
missiles the Vanguard carries. They could launch 192 warheads from
one boat. General practice is to put 3 in each missile but nothing is
stopping them from changing it, or just surging all 4 boats.

Of course, they've only got 192 or so warheads anyway. If _I_ were
going to attempt this little bit of foolishness, I wouldn't be too
happy about putting all of my warheads on one platform.

The old saying "If you're on thin ice, you may as well dance." comes
to mind. Anyone foolish enough to fire nearly 200 nukes at 7,000+ US
troops isn't going to be real worried about the chance that we'll find
their boomer and hit it first.

It'll work as an estimate. As with anything else regarding this stuff
- Those that Post don't Know. Those that Know don't Post. See the
Security Clearance threads for more (or less, depending on Need to
Knoe) info.

Crossroads Able gave some good data, I liked the pictures of the
Nevada, still floating despite having a 23kt nuke landing 1500-2000
feet away from it. The Independance (CV-22) damage report is telling
as well (all 280 pages of it); the commander estimated that if they
were ready for the blast 75% of the crew would have survived.

4 days after the blast and the damage assessment team noted how
little structural damage there was; of course all above deck aircraft
would have been blown over and any hangared planes below that weren't
secured against the 40 degree roll the ship endured would have been
wrecked but the ship was still salvagable. All the radars and
directors were gone but 1/2 of the 40mm mounts were judged to still be
in operable condition. The steering controls still worked and the
props and shafts were tested and showed that at least partial mobility
was retained.

The biggest damage the ship suffered was an untended fire which
burned out some spaces when some torpedoes and a mine were
incinerated; had there been damage control parties aboard this would
have been prevented.

Not bad for a ship that was only 3,000 feet away from a 23 kt
airburst.

area. So, in order to cover that 490 sq NM with the density required,
to ensure major damage, and not outright sinking, you'd need 70
warheads. That's 23 UK Trident's worth.

There is a slight overlap problem to deal with as the explosions
aren't exactly square, but that's a trivial matter for the purposes of
the example.

It's a Round, Round, World. But the lack of coverage by a single
warhead vs. the area that the target could be hiding in means that
Nuclear Buckshot needs some rethinking.

Either the attack time has to be considerably accellerated, the
targeting needs to be greatly improved or much larger warheads need to
be employee. Allowing course corrections at midflight apogee would
cut the escape time in half and the area to be covered by 1/4.

Combine that with a larger warhead, say the newer 475kt warheads
that can fit on a trident and rather than 200 nukes, we're down to
about 8 warheads to cover the target area and ensure at
least major damage to the carrier. Hitting it a minute later with 8
more would pretty much ensure destruction of the entire group.

One side effect of this example is why the ballistic submarine
component of the triad was so important, even if we waited for all the
nukes to land, it would be impossible for Russia to get all of our
ballistic missile subs even if they fired their entire arsenal into
the ocean.

Well, it's why the triad itself was so important. Anybody
contemplating a nuclear strike against the U.S. wouldn't have to deal
with just one type of platform, but 3. And what worked against 1 type
wouldn't work against another.

The only real protection against the sub portion of the triad would
be to find and sink the subs themselves; not exactly an easy
proposition with Cold War technology. Even the governments involved
didn't know exactly where they were hiding, other than the boundaries
of the patrol zones and it's a big ocean.

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

In article ,
(John Schilling) wrote:

Chad Irby writes:

In article ,
(John Schilling) wrote:

If they don't have a backup carrier-pigeon network, it's
because they are confident that they have alternate methods that are
even more robust in the face of all the usual US countermeasures.

...or they figure they're so screwed in the event of actual war that
they don't bother...


Except that you are the only person on Earth with this inexplicable
belief.

That's something called "humor."

Sorry you missed it.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
says...
Bernardz wrote:

:In article ,
says...
:
: We've now added invisible anti-aircraft installations
:
:Never said it would be invisible.
:
:What I said is that because there will not be time to clear the anti-
:aircraft equipment in this case the planes would be flying into them.

And why is that?

Missiles and artillery are hitting the city. We must move immediately.


:The closest example I can think of is Israel in Yom Kippur war were
:because of the immediate demands of the war meant that Israeli planes
:early in the war had to fly into very dangerous regions.

That's because they were trying to blunt an attack on themselves.
What is going to give the US such time-urgency in an invasion of
Elbonia that they won't take the time to clear the obviously visible
air defences first?

As above


: and lots of deep
: caves to the mix with the magic technology cruise missile.
:
:These sort of cruise missiles have been available for years.

Oh, really? So where can I buy a few thousand of these $10k cruise
missiles,

I would suggest that any medium size country could put something
together.

with their precision guidance, terminal radar homing, spread
spectrum datalinks, etc?

To hit a city large you don't need any of this. All a V1 had was a
simple revolution meter. Of those not shot down half hit London. I am
sure a rather simple device could now be constructed that could do a
better job.



: You have no idea how silly all this sounds to people who actually
: build weapons.
:
:Tell me?

Very.

Now, if you want to change the rules of the game and play 'North
Korea', that's a different matter.



--
A terrorist kills for publicity.

24th saying of Bernard