Internastional 24 News: Because in an actual war, America might not be able to destroy all the nukes. The North Korea Crisis Is Far Worse Than You Can Possibly Imagine But even if the United States managed to destroy North Korea’s fixed nuclear sites, the problem of hunting down Pyongyang’s mobile launchers remains. As Operation Desert Storm showed, locating and destroying mobile ballistic missile launchers is very difficult and time consuming even over flat empty desert terrain. It is neigh impossible in North Korea’s extremely rugged and mountainous terrain. Thus, North Korea might be able to launch a retaliatory strike even after an American nuclear strike since it will be extraordinarily difficult to track down and destroy those launchers. Even a single surviving nuclear-armed missile could wreak havoc. If worse comes to worse and the White House’s campaign of economic and diplomatic pressure fails to denuclearize the Korean peninsula, President Donald Trump might have to live up to his promise of meeting North Korea with “a fire, fury and frankly power, the likes of which this world has never seen before.” If the President chooses to launch a nuclear first strike on North Korea, there is no certainty even then that the United States will be able to eliminate Pyongyang’s nuclear forces before they can launch a retaliatory second strike. But a disarming first strike—or even a disarming conventional attack—might be the only option for the Washington if Trump chooses to pursue war instead of deterrence. A conventional strike using massed numbers of cruise missiles could eliminate many of Pyongyang’s fixed nuclear facilities—assuming U.S. intelligence is able to determine where those sites are—but a more difficult problem is presented by North Korea’s elusive mobile launchers and super-hardened deeply buried facilities. While a bomber like the Northrop Grumman B-2A Spirit can carry a pair of conventional 30,000lbs GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs, even those enormous weapons might not be enough to destroy the most deeply buried and hardened targets inside North Korea. Recommended: America Can't Shoot Down a North Korean Nuke The GBU-57 is thought to be able to punch through 200ft of reinforced concrete, but the actual numbers are classified and there are many analysts who believe that the publicly available figures are very optimistic. Moreover, it is entirely possible that North Korea has facilities that are buried deeper than 200ft. The problem is further compounded by the fact that the United States only built 20 GBU-57 bombs—and North Korea likely has many more facilities than that. Recommended: The Case for War with North Korea That leaves the nuclear option for any attempt at eliminating North Korea’s nuclear facilities. The United States has a vast nuclear arsenal, but most of those weapons were designed to fight the Soviet Union during a hypothetical World War III. Given the location of the Korean peninsula, Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles would likely not be useful because those weapon would have to fly on trajectories overflying Russia and China to reach their targets. That could potentially set off a much larger and much more dangerous nuclear confrontation with those states. Recommended: China's New Stealth Fighter Has Arrived Submarine launched ballistic missile launches from the Pacific would also likely make China very uneasy because of Beijing’s proximity to North Korea. Would Beijing trust that those incoming SLBMs are not heading for its territory? That leaves the B-2 as the most obvious choice to deliver a nuclear payload to North Korea. The B-2 would have to penetrate into Pyongyang’s airspace, locate its targets and deliver B61 thermonuclear bombs onto those North Korean nuclear targets. But even nuclear weapons are of limited use against deeply buried targets. “Even nuclear weapons have limited effectiveness at destroying the deepest or widely separated underground bunkers,” reads a 2005 report from the Union of Concerned Scientists. “For example, an earth penetrating weapon using the 1.2 megaton B83 warhead—the highest yield weapon in the U.S. nuclear stockpile—could crush underground bunkers to a depth of about 1000 feet. Deeper bunkers can be constructed with modern tunneling equipment, and are essentially invulnerable to nuclear attack.” But even if the United States managed to destroy North Korea’s fixed nuclear sites, the problem of hunting down Pyongyang’s mobile launchers remains. As Operation Desert Storm showed, locating and destroying mobile ballistic missile launchers is very difficult and time consuming even over flat empty desert terrain. It is neigh impossible in North Korea’s extremely rugged and mountainous terrain. Thus, North Korea might be able to launch a retaliatory strike even after an American nuclear strike since it will be extraordinarily difficult to track down and destroy those launchers. Even a single surviving nuclear-armed missile could wreak havoc. But launching a preemptive strike would have other consequences—America would be an international pariah thereafter. The alliances with Japan and South Korea would likely be broken and Washington would earn the permanent ire of both China and Russia. Moreover, America’s place as the leader of the free world would be a thing of the past, as most civilized nations would shun Washington. Thus deterrence is a far better course of action.

Tuesday, December 26, 2017

Because in an actual war, America might not be able to destroy all the nukes. The North Korea Crisis Is Far Worse Than You Can Possibly Imagine But even if the United States managed to destroy North Korea’s fixed nuclear sites, the problem of hunting down Pyongyang’s mobile launchers remains. As Operation Desert Storm showed, locating and destroying mobile ballistic missile launchers is very difficult and time consuming even over flat empty desert terrain. It is neigh impossible in North Korea’s extremely rugged and mountainous terrain. Thus, North Korea might be able to launch a retaliatory strike even after an American nuclear strike since it will be extraordinarily difficult to track down and destroy those launchers. Even a single surviving nuclear-armed missile could wreak havoc. If worse comes to worse and the White House’s campaign of economic and diplomatic pressure fails to denuclearize the Korean peninsula, President Donald Trump might have to live up to his promise of meeting North Korea with “a fire, fury and frankly power, the likes of which this world has never seen before.” If the President chooses to launch a nuclear first strike on North Korea, there is no certainty even then that the United States will be able to eliminate Pyongyang’s nuclear forces before they can launch a retaliatory second strike. But a disarming first strike—or even a disarming conventional attack—might be the only option for the Washington if Trump chooses to pursue war instead of deterrence. A conventional strike using massed numbers of cruise missiles could eliminate many of Pyongyang’s fixed nuclear facilities—assuming U.S. intelligence is able to determine where those sites are—but a more difficult problem is presented by North Korea’s elusive mobile launchers and super-hardened deeply buried facilities. While a bomber like the Northrop Grumman B-2A Spirit can carry a pair of conventional 30,000lbs GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs, even those enormous weapons might not be enough to destroy the most deeply buried and hardened targets inside North Korea. Recommended: America Can't Shoot Down a North Korean Nuke The GBU-57 is thought to be able to punch through 200ft of reinforced concrete, but the actual numbers are classified and there are many analysts who believe that the publicly available figures are very optimistic. Moreover, it is entirely possible that North Korea has facilities that are buried deeper than 200ft. The problem is further compounded by the fact that the United States only built 20 GBU-57 bombs—and North Korea likely has many more facilities than that. Recommended: The Case for War with North Korea That leaves the nuclear option for any attempt at eliminating North Korea’s nuclear facilities. The United States has a vast nuclear arsenal, but most of those weapons were designed to fight the Soviet Union during a hypothetical World War III. Given the location of the Korean peninsula, Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles would likely not be useful because those weapon would have to fly on trajectories overflying Russia and China to reach their targets. That could potentially set off a much larger and much more dangerous nuclear confrontation with those states. Recommended: China's New Stealth Fighter Has Arrived Submarine launched ballistic missile launches from the Pacific would also likely make China very uneasy because of Beijing’s proximity to North Korea. Would Beijing trust that those incoming SLBMs are not heading for its territory? That leaves the B-2 as the most obvious choice to deliver a nuclear payload to North Korea. The B-2 would have to penetrate into Pyongyang’s airspace, locate its targets and deliver B61 thermonuclear bombs onto those North Korean nuclear targets. But even nuclear weapons are of limited use against deeply buried targets. “Even nuclear weapons have limited effectiveness at destroying the deepest or widely separated underground bunkers,” reads a 2005 report from the Union of Concerned Scientists. “For example, an earth penetrating weapon using the 1.2 megaton B83 warhead—the highest yield weapon in the U.S. nuclear stockpile—could crush underground bunkers to a depth of about 1000 feet. Deeper bunkers can be constructed with modern tunneling equipment, and are essentially invulnerable to nuclear attack.” But even if the United States managed to destroy North Korea’s fixed nuclear sites, the problem of hunting down Pyongyang’s mobile launchers remains. As Operation Desert Storm showed, locating and destroying mobile ballistic missile launchers is very difficult and time consuming even over flat empty desert terrain. It is neigh impossible in North Korea’s extremely rugged and mountainous terrain. Thus, North Korea might be able to launch a retaliatory strike even after an American nuclear strike since it will be extraordinarily difficult to track down and destroy those launchers. Even a single surviving nuclear-armed missile could wreak havoc. But launching a preemptive strike would have other consequences—America would be an international pariah thereafter. The alliances with Japan and South Korea would likely be broken and Washington would earn the permanent ire of both China and Russia. Moreover, America’s place as the leader of the free world would be a thing of the past, as most civilized nations would shun Washington. Thus deterrence is a far better course of action.

The U.S. will cut its 2018 contributions to the United Nations by $285 million—nearly 25 percent—an announcement that comes days after more than 120 nations criticized the United States for its decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Ambassador Nikki Haley made the announcement Sunday, but blamed the world body for its budgetary excesses rather than last week's vote on President Donald Trump's controversial Jerusalem decision.

“The inefficiency and overspending of the United Nations are well known. We will no longer let the generosity of the American people be taken advantage of or remain unchecked,” Haley said in a statement. “This historic reduction in spending—in addition to many other moves toward a more efficient and accountable U.N.—is a big step in the right direction.”

Haley said there might be further budget cuts in the future. President Trump's proposed 2018 spending budget would end funding for UN climate change programs and would cut funding to the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) by 16 percent.

Trump has long discussed cutting U.S. contributions to the U.N., and Haley hinted that the current administration could be motivated by a lack of support for its efforts around the world, specifically after the Jerusalem vote on Thursday.

Don't miss: JetBlue Plane Slides Off Icy Runway at Boston Airport After Flying in for Christmas

"The United States is by far the single largest contributor to the U.N. and its agencies," Haley at the time. "We do this because it represents who we are. It is our American way. But we'll be honest with you. When we make generous contributions to the U.N., we also have a legitimate expectation that our goodwill is recognized and respected."

All 193 members of the United Nations are required to make payments as a part of their membership, but amount each country must pay differs and is calculated by a formula that factors in population and gross national income. The U.S. currently funds about 22 percent of the UN’s $5.4 billion annual budget.

Members may also make voluntary contributions and programs like UNICEF and The World Food Program are funded entirely by this discretionary funding.

Most popular: The UN Jerusalem Vote: Our ‘Allies’ Will Live to Regret Their DisloyaltyNikki Haley and President Donald Trump are reducing funding to the United Nations. Reuters

The U.N. peacekeeping budget was reduced by $600 million earlier this year after Trump pressured cuts. The president and Haley also threatened to cut off funding to any country that voted in favor of a draft resolution that asked the United States to reverse its Jerusalem decision.

“The United States will remember this day in which it was singled out in this assembly for the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation,” said Haley ahead of the vote. “We will remember it when, once again, we are called up to make the world’s largest contribution to the U.N., and we will remember it when many countries come calling on us to pay even more and to use our influence for their benefit.”

In 2016, the US paid $10 million to the UN, $6 million of which was voluntary.

This article was first written by Newsweek

More from Newsweek

Internastional 24 News

Pages

Tuesday, December 26, 2017

No comments:

Post a Comment