On March 6, 2019 Submarine Matters' argued that North Korea would not dismantle its nuclear capability. This is because North Korea recognizes the US will not dismantle its own intercontinental nuclear capability - a capability which can always strike North Korea.
So North Korea recognizes deal making (parleying) with the US is a facade. With that realization North Korea feels unconstrained in again resuming long range missile launches (maybe under the peaceful pretext of putting a satellite in orbit).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft Anonymous dismisses the relevance of the US intercontinental nuclear capability
(not even mentioning highly nuclear capable US B2 bombers)
by focussing on March 9, 2019 (below) on the artificially limited Korean Peninsuala theatre. This is limited by the US and North Korea, both wilfully avoiding broader strategic realities.
Aircraft Anonymous argues:
Only a small number of USAF fighter bomber types ( F16 , F15E) are nuclear capable, as its all about the latest version of the B61 nuclear bomb. It is only around 800 lbs weight but long for its size. The capability is directly the result the software and wiring on the aircraft to be able to respond to the launch codes and arm the bomb for release. Currently the F22 doesn't have that capability even though [the B61] will fit inside its weapons bays.
The F35 will have the full [nuclear] capability which is the centre of debate in Europe for replacing existing nuclear capable planes such as F16 and Tornado. [1]
For long term context , the Korean War armistice specifically excluded 'introduction of new weapons' to the Peninsula. In the mid 50s the US announced it was bringing nuclear weapons to the area and was open about repudiating what it had signed up to. Its well to consider that in looking at who hasn't been following what agreements, its not a judgemental thing, its just a relevant fact."
[1] EUROPEAN COUNTRIES NUCLEAR ARMED BY US (Courtesy Wiki) added by Pete
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft Anonymous dismisses the relevance of the US intercontinental nuclear capability
(not even mentioning highly nuclear capable US B2 bombers)
by focussing on March 9, 2019 (below) on the artificially limited Korean Peninsuala theatre. This is limited by the US and North Korea, both wilfully avoiding broader strategic realities.
Aircraft Anonymous argues:
"Its not about all nuclear weapons the US has in its arsenal that can attack North Korea. Its more specifically their presence on the Korean peninsula and the surrounding seas. Strike weapons are far more accurate than long range ICBMs [but not accurate B2s?] which arent relevant in this context
Only a small number of USAF fighter bomber types ( F16 , F15E) are nuclear capable, as its all about the latest version of the B61 nuclear bomb. It is only around 800 lbs weight but long for its size. The capability is directly the result the software and wiring on the aircraft to be able to respond to the launch codes and arm the bomb for release. Currently the F22 doesn't have that capability even though [the B61] will fit inside its weapons bays.
The F35 will have the full [nuclear] capability which is the centre of debate in Europe for replacing existing nuclear capable planes such as F16 and Tornado. [1]
The multi-lateral Typhoon doesn't currently have [a nuclear] capability - but may in its 'ultimate version'. I have seen some sources say the US navy F/A-18F isn't B61 capable but that is more likely a 'neither confirm nor deny' situation.
For long term context , the Korean War armistice specifically excluded 'introduction of new weapons' to the Peninsula. In the mid 50s the US announced it was bringing nuclear weapons to the area and was open about repudiating what it had signed up to. Its well to consider that in looking at who hasn't been following what agreements, its not a judgemental thing, its just a relevant fact."
ENDS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Weapons provided for nuclear sharing" (2015)
| |||
Country
|
Base
|
Estimated
|
Bombs
|
10~20
| |||
≥20[2]
| |||
50
| |||
20 - >40[3]
| |||
10~20
| |||
50~90
| |||
5 nations
|
6 bases
|
160~240
| |
In case of war, B61 nuclear bombs are to be mounted on the fighter-bombers of the European countries' above. The weapons are under the custody and control of the USAF Munitions Support Squadrons co-located on NATO main operating bases. These USAF Munitions Support Squadrons work together with the European host airforces.
----------------------------------------------------------------
See intercontinental US weapons, the B52, B2, B21 (armed with Long Range Stand Off Weapon (LRSO)), that don't need to be based in the Korean Peninsula to strike North Korea.
4 comments:
@Pete:
US nuclear weapons were previously based in South Korea for decades until their removal at the end of the cold war in 1991. Around the same time, USN vessels also offloaded all tactical nuclear weapons (this would have included B-61 on CVs, BGM-109s on SSNs, and probably a collection of depth bombs, ASROC, and SUBROC warheads).
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2017.1388656
It's worth noting the weapons in Korea were probably directed at Russian Pacific Fleet bases more than North Korea; Japan would not allow warhead basing on their soil (though it didn't question whether docked ships had such weapons, unlike New Zealand).
In the current context, the only relevant US weapons that could reach North Korea are strategic weapons or tactical weapons that are based on US soil. So there is no reasonable posture for the US to adopt that would further denuclearize the Korean peninsula. There are of course tens of thousands of US troops in the ROK that could be traded as a bargaining chip, as well as the economic sanctions which are far more important to the DPRK. However the US position is that Korea must make the compromises first - which is understandable given how many previous agreements it has breached or worked around.
Realistically the only thing that will change the status quo is Kim dying of natural causes or some kind of conflict.
Cheers,
Josh
@Pete:
Rumor has it the weapons at Incirlik were removed when the US and Turkey had a falling out over their respective Syria policies a couple years ago, but it has always been US policy that it will neither confirm nor deny the placement of nuclear weapons so it is impossible to confirm.
Cheers,
Josh
Thanks Josh
For some fresh ways of looking at the hitherto over simplified Trump-Kim bargain counters.
And I agree that "Realistically the only thing that will change the status quo is Kim dying of natural causes or some kind of conflict."
Regards
Pete
Hi Josh
With a Turkish leader who seems to be a law unto himself, neo-Fascist, dictator its a relief that Turkey may have been stripped of its shared nukes.
I'm sure Kurds within the region, including in Syria, would feel slightly more relieved.
Regards
Pete
Post a Comment