What's new

North Korea Defence Forum

Missiles blamed on US refusal to talk
Source: Agencies | February 14, 2017, Tuesday |

020170214004114.jpg



CHINA says the root cause of North Korea’s missile launches is Pyongyang’s friction with the United States and South Korea.

North Korea fired a banned ballistic missile on Sunday, its first test since US President Donald Trump took office. The missile, launched as Trump hosted Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in Florida, is believed to have flown about 500 kilometers before splashing down in international waters.

Foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said the launch violated UN Security Council resolutions that call for an end to North Korea’s nuclear and missile tests.

Trump has complained that Beijing is not doing enough to put pressure on Pyongyang. Beijing counters that its influence is overstated and suggests Washington’s refusal to talk directly to North Korea is impeding progress toward a solution.

“The root cause of the nuclear missile issue is its differences with the US and South Korea,” Geng told reporters.

Geng said China, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, has been “completely and comprehensively” implementing Security Council resolutions on the nuclear issue.

He said Beijing “has been striving for a settlement of the Korean Peninsula issue by proactively engaging in mediation and promoting peace talks.”

Although generally dismissive of sanctions, Beijing has signed on to successive rounds under the UN Security Council, and last month banned more items from being exported to North Korea, including plutonium and dual-use technologies that could aid its nuclear program.

Geng urged all sides to refrain from provocative actions and said China would continue to participate in Security Council discussions in a constructive and responsible way.

Beijing appears concerned that the US and South Korea will speed up the planned deployment of an advanced missile defense system in South Korea that the two allies said was designed to counter a missile attack from North Korea. Beijing objects to the system because it would possibly be able to observe Chinese military movements.

Shi Yuanhua, a Korean studies professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, said that from Pyongyang’s perspective it was a good time to launch a missile because the new US administration hadn’t decided what approach to take with North Korea, and Beijing was at odds with Washington and Seoul over the anti-missile system.

“Whether or not to abandon nuclear weapons concerns North Korea’s core national interests and there is no way for China to get it to change its stance with a few words of persuasion, and it can’t solve the problem by applying a ban on exports,” Shi said.

“The key for solving the problem lies in the hands of the US. If the US is willing to sit and talk with North Korea, China will be happy to promote it,” he added.
 
Even heard of balance of power in the region, So i 2nd Nkorea on this
but i still believe Pyongyang’s is the worst govt in the world by not moving ahead with global market, things like banning internet etc
 
Whoever disturbs the BofP in Korean Peninsula is punished. Historically so.

This time it is the US and SK disturbing it . They will have a bloody nose if they did not stop it.

Of course, all sides will get hurt.

But, eventually, status quo has to be restored.
 
Negative. Pakistan has not canisterised any of its ballistic missiles (for cold launches). Such capability is not really required at the moment, plus it requires a lot more R&D.
Does this cold start offer any advantage over what we have? I understand that in order to launch it from a submarine a cold start is required so that missile is out of the water before the booster motor ignites but what about on land?
 
Does this cold start offer any advantage over what we have? I understand that in order to launch it from a submarine a cold start is required so that missile is out of the water before the booster motor ignites but what about on land?
Its not really the cold-launch which offers the advantage. Cold-launch is a consequence of canisterization.
The ballistic missile must be propelled out of the canister before its main stage is ignited, otherwise the sheer exhaust can damage (blow apart) the canister. Hot-launch works for smaller canisterized systems like cruise missiles (Babur) and rockets (Nasr).

The advantages of canisterization are negligible assembly times, minimum launch preparation, enhanced mobility, environmental protection...stuff like that, which is obviously better than what Pakistan has now, but not worth the effort. For now and the foreseeable future, the launch technologies Pakistan currently possesses is adequate against India.
 
Its not really the cold-launch which offers the advantage. Cold-launch is a consequence of canisterization.
The ballistic missile must be propelled out of the canister before its main stage is ignited, otherwise the sheer exhaust can damage (blow apart) the canister. Hot-launch works for smaller canisterized systems like cruise missiles (Babur) and rockets (Nasr).

The advantages of canisterization are negligible assembly times, minimum launch preparation, enhanced mobility, environmental protection...stuff like that, which is obviously better than what Pakistan has now, but not worth the effort. For now and the foreseeable future, the launch technologies Pakistan currently possesses is adequate against India.
Considering silo's aren't used, canisterization of missiles for enhanced mobility would be a worthwhile advantage?
 
Considering silo's aren't used, canisterization of missiles for enhanced mobility would be a worthwhile advantage?
I just said in the last post, its not worth it against India. It would require a considerable amount of resources and R&D to give Pakistan a capability that would only be useful if Pakistan was NK and India was the US.

The mobility Pakistan's systems have right now (considering India only as a potential threat), is more than enough to evade any preemptive strikes. Pakistan will always have enough time to assemble the systems during the course of escalations in a conflict. After that, the systems are largely mobile and can be kept on a high-alert status, capable of being launched in a matter of a ballpark figure of an hour.
 
I just said in the last post, its not worth it against India. It would require a considerable amount of resources and R&D to give Pakistan a capability that would only be useful if Pakistan was NK and India was the US.

The mobility Pakistan's systems have right now (considering India only as a potential threat), is more than enough to evade any preemptive strikes. Pakistan will always have enough time to assemble the systems during the course of escalations in a conflict. After that, the systems are largely mobile and can be kept on a high-alert status, capable of being launched in a matter of a ballpark figure of an hour.
But wouldn't such a capability be required for a sea-based submarine launch?
 
Back
Top Bottom