North Korea fires missile over Japan | Hacker News Reader

North Korea fires missile over Japan

theguardian.com

91 pointsjlipps77 comments

This leads to the next thing. Violating Japan's airspace with a missile may be a provocation for war. If that's the case, you're going to hear from our (US) president that we're officially going to war or conflict with North Korea. Unfortunately, in this case, I believe that Bannon is right. (We're screwed in that situation)

Whatever else you think of Bannon, he was, and is staunchly anti-war.

I'm not sure you can say that about any of Trumos current advisers.

We aren't going to war, at least not intentionally. The downsides of a conflict with a nuclear state, even one with questionable capabilities like the DPRK, vastly outweigh the upsides. And Kim knows this, which is why he feels free to continue to call our bluffs.

Trump's inability to bluff (or communicate with precision in general) has really messed things up at this point. I mean, taking his words as spoken he has already threatened to nuke them if they even so much as continue issuing threats. Not only did they up the threat ante within hours of that remark (c.f. "attack the waters around Guam"), they've now put a weapon straight through an ally's airspace. Where do we go from here?

NK will not be going to war, unless by miscalculation. Kim knows that of all the scenarios in a war, none end with him munching on caviar in a palace. There are two major powers that would make certain of that. Why do you think he was so keen to assassinate his half brother?

This is where I couldn't figure out his motive. He clearly wants to maintain his reign, but if so, why did he start provoking in the first place?

The threats are to extract concessions.

The nukes are to make them too dangerous to invade.

Some say too dangerous not to invade. It's a complicated situation and there's no easy choice IMO.

Because Kim's reign is predicated on maintaining credibility with his generals. He does that by rattling his saber and extracting economic concessions from the global community in general (and the US in particular).

Why he needs to go precisely this far is a good question. Possibly because Trump has consistently misplayed his hand and made a series of stupid bluffs that were quick and easy to call. Kim is probably testing the edges of his geopolitical box, figuring that it's a bit roomier than he'd previously calculated.

Well he already backed off on his Guam threats. How much credibilty does that gain him with his generals, and how did Trump misplay that exactly?

Where do we go from here? To the very brink, at least if Trump is left to his own (mobile) devices. My guess is he will reroute a CBG or two towards the Korean peninsula and make a lot of bluster about whatever new line he is prepared to draw.

Meanwhile, everyone else works frantically on a backchannel plan that allows both Kim and Trump to save some face. I don't see how this happens unless brokered by China, who emerges the big winner on the world stage.

Imagine you're North Korea. Like you give a fuck if the US starts flying things close to your borders. They know that if the US attacks it's game over for South Korea, so unless the US is willing to throw South Korea under the bus the US won't do a damned thing.

The US will also have to convince China it was attacked in order to get support. Otherwise China will sit out any conflict, as ugly as it might get.

North Korea is really smacking the bear around with a stick here seeing how far they can go before they get bit.

North Korea could be completely carpet bombed before they got a middle to South Korea. Why no one is willing to stop North Korea is bewildering.

I don't think you have any idea how many pieces of artillery they have, nor how many tunnels there are going beneath the DMZ. They are ready to cause as much destruction and chaos as their 1950s era arsenal can inflict.

It would take thousands of cruise missiles to even dent their defenses. You can't use bombers until the anti-aircraft systems are down. It's going to take hours to finish the job, and even then who knows what they've launched in that time. Seoul is an easy target, very hard to miss.

I suspect that the US has had the capability to disable ICBMs for some time now. (See patriot missile system and iron dome and remember Regan's star wars project and its not a big leap to make) I think it's just a matter that we don't want to let would be nuclear assailants know until they have already committed.

"Mister President, there's been a launch. There's six missiles heading for California and Washington state."

"Not now, I'm busy."

"Put down the phone, Sir. This is isn't a drill."

He is afraid he has to answer to the Coca Cola company.

Yes, it's called the THAAD and it has been recently deployed in SK after a long debate.

I'm thinking that but in an orbital configuration.

Indeed, it is hard to overstate the damage NK could wreak on Seoul, even in the opening hours of a full scale conflict. Roughly half of the population of SK lives in the greater Seoul metro area. Artillery barages could claim millions of lives, and wreak economic devastation, and we're not even talking about nukes yet. I don't relish the thought of Kim, backed into a corner, fearing total oblivion, his fingers fluttering inches away from the big red button.

I read(1) that only the northern part of Seoul the city is in striking distance of their (somewhat limited in numbers) long range artillery, and that there are lots of shelters e.g. the way the subway system doubles up as being bunkers.

However the civilians part between Seoul and the DMZ, home to millions, is not going to fare exceedingly well - if the North decides to "waste" their ammo on civilians instead of the military that will be hitting them back.

1) https://www.quora.com/Can-North-Korean-artillery-really-kill...

That people can casually accept the massive loss of lives this would cause is bewildering.

Not really. Preserving us is more important than preserving them.

Imagine that person believes, that if that's not done, alternative is WW3. Can you guarantee that's not going to happen? What if they actually nuke something, and then China will follow?

Even if we just remove the missile sites, and any sort of nuclear ordinance on the first attack, they don't really have nearly as much as they claim capable of hitting Seoul[1], and even then it can only hit the northern 3rd of the city, which is less populated. The city itself has put a lot of work into infrastructure in preparation, enough bunkers and shelters to house 20 million. Yes, it will get hit, people will die, but as long as no nuke comes down, I'd consider than a win, for eliminating such a dangerous tyrant.

Of course, coming to terms with China will be an entirely different matter.

1: https://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-special-reports/mind-th...

Being shelled so severely that Seoul looks like Pyongyang is not a win here.

China doesn't want this mess getting any messier. At the end of the day, both Trump and Kim are wild cards, and a simple fuckup could blow nuclear fallout and/or waves of refugees over the Chinese border.

Meanwhile, China can come out a big winner by seizing this opportunity to play the adult in the room while simultaneously embarrassing the US. Trump has handed this win to Xi in a tidy little gift box.

You're giving China too much credit. China is the entire reason why North Korea exists. Everyone knows this.

Yes, and North Korea's continued existence is useful to China. If this pet bites the hand the feeds it, China can euthanize it and select a new pet. Plenty of generals ready to take Kim's place and consolidate power over NK with China's assistance.

Yeah, this is all Chinas fault. No matter what they don't come out looking good.

We get the leaders of Japan, China and South Korea together on a conference call and all agree not to start World War 3 when China decides to push through some "regime change." Why would China do this? Because North Korea is useful to them as a buffer state and a proxy to aggravate the West, but only so long as they can be controlled. Once they pose a real threat to their neighbors, they also pose a real threat to China. And China would rather have the chance to prove its dominance than let US do so.

So, Kim Jong-Un accidentally trips down the stairs and lands head-first on a bullet, along with his entire regime, and we all look the other way, and the US sends everybody lots and lots and lots of money.

The problem with that plan is that China has only marginally more control over Kim than we do. He's a rogue from their perspective too, and their ability to effect a "regime change" is limited by the same "don't poke the nuclear nutjob" problem we have.

There's some truth to that (see the recent Malaysian assassination under the nose of Chinese security), but China very clearly has benefited from the status quo and I would bet that there are powerful people in the NE region of China who do have influence and are pedaling it like mad right now.

I am not convinced that Kim is rogue. How do you know his actions are not dictated by China?

We can't know, but there's no reason to suspect they are. Why would China want a North Korea able to nuke Beijing? Why impose sanctions on North Korea if they're following your orders? And when has North Korea ever listened to anyone?

China has been playing a dangerous game in nurturing the Kim regime and allowing it to obtain nuclear weapons. China has benefitted over the years from the presence of a hedge on its border against the US and South Korea, and from the frustrations the Kims have caused for the US, South Korea, and Japan. But it's been keeping a wild animal as a pet in its own backyard, and now that animal's got claws and rabies.

Interestingly enough, I see the emergence of common ground between Washington and Beijing on this issue. Sooner or later, China is going to calculate that Kim Jong-Un is more trouble than he's worth. When that happens, I can see the US and China arranging an unwritten agreement to take out Kim in exchange for the US's acceptance of the legitimacy of the North Korean state.

That would be a bitter pill for the US and its allies to swallow. But it seems preferable to the current course and speed of events, which basically have Kim developing usable ICBMs within a decade or less. To assume that a growing nuclear arsenal will somehow make Kim less of a threat, or endow him with a newfound sense of global stewardship and responsibility, is to place a particularly strange bet.

The people of North Korea suffer greatly in poverty, lack of food, lack of resource, lack of education. The greatest issue is not taking out the head of the snake, it's the millions of refugees that would go to South Korea, flooding one of the most tech-advanced countries with people needing help and livelihood. That's the big tsunami that nobody wants to look at.

I don't think anyone is saying that accepting the DPRK is a good option. I'm saying it may end up being the best worst option available to us at some unspecified point in the next decade or so.

Hopefully we can encourage or entice China into forcing systematic reform on a post-Kim DPRK. I don't think China will all too keen to foster democracy and open markets, so we shouldn't expect too much. But we can probably inveigh on China that an economically and socially stable DPRK is preferable to an unstable one, and that the global soft power China desperately craves will come when it is seen as having at least a shred of concern for human rights. Up to us and China to come to terms on exactly what the bargain would be. But my best guess is that it won't be something we'd currently find conscionable or acceptable.

My point is, from a realist perspective, our bargaining power is only going to incrementally diminish over time. Today we have the strongest hand of cards we are ever going to be delt, and it is a really shitty hand. Tomorrow our hand is going to be even shittier, and China's stronger. You dont need to stretch your imagination too far to see that we have no real way to win this game. Previous presidents have tried checking. Trump has tried bluffing. Sooner or later, someone at the table is going to call.

What do you mean by "accepting?" There are going to be millions of resource-less refugees when North Korea falls apart. The US already "accepts" North Korea in the way that there is lots of foreign aide sent there, and most of it gets gobbled up at the "top of the food chain." Adding legitimacy to a foul empire is not any sort of solution that embarks upon the path to positive change.

"I don't see how this happens unless brokered by China, who emerges the big winner on the world stage."

NK is entirely dependent on China, and every administration has tried to get them to do something about their unruly vassal state. Unfortunately the status quo is what they desire most, so absent escalation they won't do anything.

As much as I hate Trump, none of this is his fault. If we have to address this at the root, it's China, the pink elephant in the room. China, our biggest trading partner and also an authoritarian government (US is probably kicking itself allowing such a horrible actor to be so powerful), is propping up this vassel state and prevent any progress made in the peninsula. If China wasn't propping them up, North Korean government would have already fell long time ago.

So what happens now? Do we just let China keep protecting its puppet until the puppet has shipped a nuclear bomb to a port in Los Angeles? I hope not. I hope the world takes action before then.

That is it. China has full control over its huge border to NK. No way for them to import missile parts unless China is OK with that. Everything of value that NK has and that its elite enjoys is imported from China: Cars, buses, flat-screen TVs, mobile phones...

Plus, China could cut or reduce the oil/gas supply any day to zero.... if they wanted.

I agree. DPRK should keep its nuclear weapons. I am more concerned about nukes in the Indian peninsula when it comes to world security. How good is Pakistan at keeping its nuclear arsenal safe? How good is India? Can we trust them to be competent?

What we should focus on is strengthening the democracy and the economy of ROK so when DPRK fails, ROK can be independent and strong like Germany was in the nineties in its unification. We are nowhere close.

The idea of NK dropping a nuke anywhere is just utter non-sense. It's obvious that all the threats, from both sides, are nothing more than sabre rattling and when you look at the actual actions of nations the US has done really terrible things, while NK has done very little, yet everyone seems to be OK with the US having thousands of nukes under the control of a psycho leader, but can't handle the idea of NK having some nukes to protect themselves.

What a load of malarkey.

Agreed, this is not Trumps fault.

To me it all feels like the classic "I dare you to punch me"

North Korea's brinksmanship isn't Trumps fault. The ham fisted diplomacy which has left us with no good options in the face of their escalation absolutely is. The Obama administration managed to keep the system in something like a steady state for eight years, after all. It's getting out of control now for a reason.

> they've now put a weapon straight through an ally's airspace.

Have you studied a map around NK? To get a missile to a target that's free of people in international waters, you have to fly through at least one country's airspace.

Flying over open water is one thing. The missiles flew straight over populated land.

Again, there is literally no way for NK to fly the missles to the water WITHOUT going over populated land. Study a map for god's sake.

According to Washington Post, the rocket has not entered Japan's airspace, it went into the outer space before coming back to Earth to the east of Hokkaido. (Yes, it did cross the projection of Japan onto the heavens.)

Many people are blaming China for the whole NK situation for their "support" and asking for a regime change.

What do you propose that China can do after the regime change?

Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and great examples that you cannot just throw away a dictatorship. What follows is practically a game of thrones of powers in the region which is a lose-lose situation for everyone, specially people of the "free'd" country and the neighbors.

> Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya

I think it's wrong to compare North Korea to those countries. For one, the post-regime change problems in those countries have been caused by Islamic insurgencies, which is not something I'd expect to happen in NK.

What, because East Asians are incapable of armed insurgency?

Are you forgetting the Viet Cong so quickly?

They certainly are, but I think it's foolish to think that a regime change would play out the same in NK as it did in countries with very different cultures. I'm skeptical that NK's ideology would be able to sustain an insurgency after too much contact with the outside.

Also, the Viet Cong were supported by a state, North Vietnam. They also weren't able to defeat South Vietnam; that took a withdrawal of US support and the actions of the regular North Vietnamese Army.

And recall, you're playing Game of Thrones with nuclear material, so there will likely be no winning that.

Best case would likely be China just annexing the whole country and imposing martial law for the next ~30 years. At least people would be more likely to get fed, and the nukes would be safe-ish.

First of all, if there's a regime change towards democracy, there's no business with China. South Korea will liberate and take care of their emasculated, starved, brutalized relatives in North Korea. Not China, the one that's been supporting the brutalization of all of the people in North Korea.

China has clearly shown a capability to govern reluctant populations. I'm not sure why occupied NK would be different.

First thing on the BBC article:

> No effort was made by the Japanese to shoot down the missile, which was launched early in the morning local time, triggering safety warnings.

Isn't that odd? Why mention this up front? Why not shoot this down given the warnings to the public indicated it was serious and a threat to life?

What tech do Japan use to shoot these down? Is it the same as the Yanks? What happens the moment they try to shoot one down and it sails right by?

Seems like you'd be revealing capabilities. That said if I were making decisions in Japan I'd give serious thought to just sending a missile over North Korea into the Yellow Sea.

Most ballistic missile defense (BMD) currently deployed is designed for a shootdown in the terminal phase, ie after the missile has reentered the atmosphere. Destroying a missile in the boost phase, before it leaves the atmosphere, is the best bet, but that requires advanced intelligence of when and where a launch will happen. If I recall correctly, there's currently no good midcourse BMD for when the missile is out of the atmosphere. Aegis has some midcourse capability, but it's for lower and shorter range missiles, I think. That just leaves terminal defense, like THAAD and the Aegis system, and terminal defense is the hardest phase. So there's no real good option to shoot it down, especially if it turns out your interceptor has a low probability of kill (pk). If a missile was actually coming down into Japan, you can be sure that there will be several interceptors on their way.

As for tech, Japan mostly uses the same tech as the US, including THAAD, which is a ground-based radar and launcher, the Aegis system with the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) which is a ship-based radar and launcher, and finally the Patriot system of ground-based radar and launcher. However, the Patriot's PAC-2 and -3 missiles are designed for missiles with a shorter range than ICBMs. All of them have data-sharing, so you can use an Aegis radar to track a missile for a THAAD battery to launch.

If you try to shoot a North Korean missile and miss, then either morale goes out the window if it was an NK test, or you have to fall back on the next line of defense (Aegis -> THAAD -> Patriot) and hope that it hits. The further the ICBM goes though, the lower pk you have since it's going faster and potentially has better maneuverability.

What does the Japanese Self-Defense Force's charter allow in cases like this? Are they allowed to launch attacks on foreign soil in response to immediate threats, or do they need to appeal to the US/allies to do it for them?

(Not that there's much they could usefully do to NK, AFAIK, but I'm curious about the principle.)

Not in the current form of the constitution, but this kind of 'trial' will sure be used by the prime minister to push his article 9 reform.

Is there any way an amateur can verify claims of a missile being fired? Does it appear on radar at all? Thinking one of the flight tracking sites.

In today's world I'm skeptical to say the least.

Certainly NK has every reason to lie, but I can't imagine why Japan would. Open war with NK would be very dangerous for them.

Not saying they are lying but Abe has been continously playing with the fear of NK to push his military agenda (the change of constitution and surveillance laws).

No: the missile peaked at 550km (probably about when it was over Japan), so unless a(n un)lucky Japanese civilian in "sparsely populated Hokkaido" was looking toward Pyongyang through a telescope at 6am and tweeted a photo of the missile in boost phase, I'd say you wouldn't even be able to tell what the object was.

Furthermore, if you don't trust reports from two nations' militaries, you definitely shouldn't trust anything on the Internet.

Hokkaido is beautiful this time of year, just sayin'

>In today's world I'm skeptical to say the least.

Why? NK has been launching missiles for quite some time now, and this fits reasonably well with their overall pattern of escalation. I don't really pay that much attention to NK, but this launch is utterly unsurprising to me based on my very limited and amateur interest in the subject.

The flight tracking sites doesn't use radar, they use ADS-B and a network of internet connected receivers.

I'm less worried about NK missiles than I am about a boat with an NK nuke on board, detonated in a harbor. A "smugglers war".

I'm assuming the US Coast Guard is all over this kind of threat, but I don't know how hard it is to detect a bomb hidden aboard in some cranny, shielded by multiple layers of inches-thick steel.

Im not privy to the nitty gritty of the Coast Guard's Maritime Safety ans Security Teams (MSSTs) operations, but finding a nuclear weapon on a vessel is fundamentally a needle in a haystack problem. The best way is going to be intel driven - it is just too easy to hide from a physics standpoint.

>I'm less worried about NK missiles than I am about a boat with an NK nuke on board, detonated in a harbor

How does North Korea benefit from an attack like that? The regime isn't suicidal, every move they make is to strengthen their own position.

That's assuming it can be traced to NK after detonation.

What is the benefit in that situation? They know any attack will make the US more hostile, whether they're involved or not.

  inches-thick steel

Lead would probably work better.

This is terrifying in light of watching simulated WW3 this morning this morning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbB0srzLuuo

I wonder if China could just annex NK a la Russia and Crimea, but in this case bring them into the modern age. The world would probably breathe a sigh of relief.

Kim in the North: winter's coming!

I'm more worried about Trump escalating than Kim.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com