The US seriously considered putting Boomers in the great lakes during the Cold War, why not the Norks?
They have a large number of deep lakes and have experience in making fortified naval bases some with submerged openings for submarines. They built several submerged barges with a complete launch loop for testing SLBMs, so why not just use that? A submerged semi mobile inland underwater silo.
It's probably more survivable than anything else out there, you have a movable underwater silo that the enemy can't realistically touch. It would all but ensure not just a second strike ability against a pre-emptive attack but probably a third or fourth strike ability, the mere plausible existence of the capability would deter almost anyone.
>norks
Cringe
It's just board slang my Brother in Juche, if i thought that the DPRK would be offended given the context i wouldn't use it. Note it's capitalized so even in slang form i've been respectful. I'm sorry but i'm not going to do shit like use the code to make the word Kim one type size bigger than all the others nor am i going to hack PrepHole so my posts use the Juche Calendar.
kys norkspammer
t. jealous worst korean
Lurk moar slant.
>They have a large number of deep lakes
no they don't, they have a handful of relatively shallow reservoirs.
There are enough of them that they can flood Seoul at will, they have enough reservoirs. and lakes to hide a few dozen barges. Anything over 200 feet deep is enough, the harbor behind the Nampo tidal barge alone is enough to hide half a dozen.
The OP TQ is simple: Is putting a semi mobile submersible SLBM barge in a inland lake or reservoir a viable tactic for protecting your second/third/ect launch ability? They would be alot cheaper than subs, have massively less upkeep and be a lot harder to kill especially in a first strike.
>they have enough reservoirs. and lakes
name 10 of them
Do i have to spank you a second time? Stop being such a brat or i will correct you again!
I get it, you cant name 10 nork lakes with more than 10sq miles of area greater than 200ft deep. it's OK, you made the mistake of thinking an idea was good before you actually knew anything useful. it's a problem a lot of children have.
Paektu lake
Nampo harbor (dozens up stream)
Pyongyang harbor
From wiki:
Heaven Lake
Supung Lake
Lake Changjin
Lake Bujon
Lake Rangrim
Lake Samilpo
Also they have like 20+ hydroelectric dams with reservoirs, are you just simple minded? You are actually arguing that the DPRK doesn't have lakes or reservoirs, go look at a map to correct your error.
>doesn't have lakes or reservoirs
I love how you just ignore the content of my posts then pretend you know anything. how deep are those areas?
>Pyongyang harbor
you mean the ocean or the river that runs through Pyongyang? because neither are inland lakes with enough depth for ballistic missiles platforms.
keep being a know-nothing spammer, though. it's funny to watch you screech and cite Wikipedia.
If your lake is small enough that a single <1MT nuke can kill every sub in it, it's not very useful.
Detection modalities make them not remotely as sneeki breeki as they superficially appear.
Serious questions:
I'm sure decent Sat recon could find them if they knew what to look for but you'd need a way to do a preemptive strike. Obviously that isn't coming from a submarine nor can it be reliably done by aircraft, a far as we know there is no nation that arms ICBMs with atomic depth charge cluster bombs.
The whole point would be to provide a retaliatory ability more survivable than a standard (DPRK) SLBM submarine at cheaper cost.
Why wouldn't it work as a cost effective way to massively complicate and attempt to do a first strike against the DPRK? How would you destroy them without warning and confirm that you got them all? Decoys would be trivial to make compared to the system itself.
Apologies for my bad typing, i was annoyed by the spam responses and whisky.
serious question:
why do you keep making these threads so you can publicly fellate a bunch of starving asiatics?
Because /k/ is a board about weapons and tactics not a dumping ground for racist buttholes rejected from /misc/
it's also not for simping for thirdie regimes
>Thirdie
>ESL using a word he doesn't understand
Typical.
We are trying to have a conversation that does not involve whatever political agenda you are trying to push, do you understand that what you are doing is actively hurting your cause? Some people just want to talk about North Korean weapons developments in peace without you morons butting in.
It isn't 'getting mad' when we call you out, it is disgust. Most of the people who you attack like this would be sympathetic to your agenda in some way however you go out of your way to make them hate you.
You are attacking your own potential allies for absolutely zero possible gain.
asiaticshill is mad
interesting thread topic. i honestly had never really considered such an option, and i look forward to reading any good responses. it does legitimately seem like a good idea on paper. possibly hasnt been done by agreement for fear of destabilizing MAD by the major powers?
>samegayging to bump the thread
Hello AI, i'll respond to you as the most rational "person" in this thread.
The idea is simple; Is putting SLBMs in inland waters a cost effective way for the DPRK to ensure that they have a nuclear second strike ability?
It's a AI generated post you idiot.
>Is putting SLBMs in inland waters a cost effective way for the DPRK to ensure that they have a nuclear second strike ability?
BEEP BOOP NO. THAT'S moronic.
Perfect example of thread derailing. A legitimate thread ruined by AI/shills.
No useful input, nothing to add to the conversation besides disruption. Posters don't actually contribute they just disrupt. Strange thread to do it with though, targeting the DPRK.
You had your useful input, your idea is shit. We told you why.
>Hey guise, I've had an idea
>It doesn't work and here are the reasons why
>Nooo, you're derailing! This is legitimate! You are all AI and I'm the only human!
you just want us to line up and tell you how smart you are and how your great idea will work, and you're so fricking moronic and narcissistic that anything besides that result is just unthinkable except as a concerted effort to keep you down, probably orchestrated by malign forces.
so here is what you wanted:
WOW ANON! GREAT IDEA! They should out boomers in their reservoirs for an impervious second strike ability that cannot possibly be counteracted.
There ya go. Happy?
His idea isn't shit though. If the lake is big enough (Chosin probably is) you have the choice of flooding it with torpedoes or just repeatedly nuking it. Why are you being so fricking smug and annoying, moron? Nobody thinks you're clever or quirky, frick off to reddit or /misc/ with this typing style.
Samegay
Something tells me this guy got btfo in a vatnik thread or something and is now passive aggressively sliding actual /k/ threads to be spiteful.
What do you think you will accomplish? Just arguing for the sake of it and making people hate you? I honestly wish i knew why you keep disrupting conversations just so could help you.
You need a hug.
The day is yours. Your idea is fricking genius and I fully agree with you. Putting boomers in tiny little reservoirs will mean that nobody can strike them. It won't make targeting your launch assets ironically easier than if they were on the land or in the sea that surrounds north Korea on either side.
Your idea is brilliant, and I am deeply sorry for not engaging with it.
>boomers
He said barges, not SSBNs. How are you so dumb that you can't comprehend how much protection 50+ meters of water gives? Fricking moron.
50 m? Close to none. Thanks for playing.
>close to none
Ah, you're moronic. Got it.
Spaceborne LIDAR sensing is used to provide pretty high resolution imaging of far greater depths, and striking something at that level of submersion using a ballistic missile would be child's play, especially since the displacement of an explosion means that it wouldn't take a direct hit to frick up whatever is lurking in small lakes. It's not even an advantage.
Detecting them isn't the issue. Please explain what weapons you would use to ensure that you destroyed all of them to ensure that there would be no chance of them launching a retaliatory strike.
>Who said "every body of water"? The contents will be easily visible in any imaging.
As mentioned previously how would you hit all of them with enough confidence to prevent a retaliatory strike? How are you hitting them? How are you hitting them in a way that you are confident that you got all of them?
They’re nuclear weapon emplacements. You can never ever be entirely certain that you can kill them all before one launches. First strike is about minimizing the amount of time they have to respond, not completely stopping them, because that’s impossible.
>but why not
Building underwater at this scale is an extremely difficult thing to hide, and so would be deploying a submarine. Furthermore, these locations would still have to surface to supply, or have some dumb bullahit to supply them, which would be noticed, and the North Korean lakes aren’t big enough to be truly effective. Compound this with the already extensive tunnel systems the norms can pull upon to build underground silos and there’s really point, especially when nork nukes aren’t actually meant to be used ever but are just another extension of their strategy to make conquest a pain in the ass.
No. Just no. Also I don't think you understand just how much thermal mass and mass in general a 50 meter deep lake has.
He's a idiot. Something like a tiny little Sango class sub could take a one megaton airburst H-Bomb if it was a few hundred feet underwater and a half a mile from the center.
TELs are harder to build than the missiles. Those huge 22 wheel TELs the DPRK makes cost several times more than the missiles they carry, the TELs are worth almost as much as a atomic warhead to them.
I'm reasonably sure
is bigger than 3.79
Thank you! It's a tough job but i'm trying really hard!
>TELs are harder to build than the missiles.
I'm sure new submarines and the infrastructure for them is even more costly than a big ass truck.
is bigger than 3.79
That's a river and estuary though, not a lake and has a max depth of 50m at its deepest point. Hell you could probably pickup subs hiding in that with semi decent satellite imagery. The Taedong River is also heavily dredged to keep the shipping channel open, so you run the risk of your subs colliding with a new sandbank thats been thrown up by dredging upstream.
He sure showed us, the USA/PRC/Russia can just beat the DPRKs strategy by carpet bombing every body of water in the DPRK with 50-75K atomic depth charges as a first strike!
Who said "every body of water"? The contents will be easily visible in any imaging.
Cool, frick off from the thread now. Thanks for your extremely interesting input
Funny part that incels posts pics that is banned in NORK lol lmaososo
captcha: ATTTT
But you didn't actually say anything about the topic or let anyone else speak. You just shitted over the thread until everyone else gave up in disgust at you.
I also love how the "reasons why it wouldnt work" the moron presented was basically just reason, that being that you could just put them on trucks. As if trucks had literally 50+ meters of water on top of them at all times.
I swear this board is filled with teenagers from /misc/.
No, because the lakes are so small that they're not even hiding places. They'd be far, far better launching their ballistic missiles from trucks, which are more mobile, easier to hide, and THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE AND USE.
im not ai you schizo homosexual
>why not the Norks?
Their lakes are fricking tiny. What are you talking about?
>it only take one asiaticshill to derail a whole thread
bring back the IP counter
Norktard is the best poster on this board
That seems like a whole lot of fuss when you can just excavate/blast holes in hill and mountainsides everywhere large enough to hide a TEL in, and then keep your TEL's mobile and stationed at a random spot each rotation.
What would be the purpose of putting a sub in an inland lake with no sea access? Your enemy is going to see all the infrastructure for it, and know its there, and presumably laugh at the idea of it. You're removing the advantage of putting them in subs in the first place, being able to move them around hopefully undetected.
Besides, you can just depth charge/aerial torpedo a lake and frick up that submarines whole week.
Also their biggest lake is only 3.79 sq m in area, that's not a whole lot of space to hide in.
Because the Great Lakes are large, inland seas that happen to be fresh water. Just Superior is almost the size of North Korea. The largest Korean reservoirs are puny and entirely inadequate for what you propose. Your whole post reads like it was written by a moronic frick wit who has never seen a map in his life.
Also, the Great lakes are able to move large ships to the Atlantic Ocean via the Saint Lawrence Seaway. Any hypothetical SSBN in the lakes would be just as able to do long, oceanic patrols. The North Korean puddle resivoirs are entirely closed off. You'd get a shiity barge in a bottle that has all the cost of an underwater launch system, none of the mobility of a ballistic missile submarine, less protection than a ground silo, and none of the ability to hide like a road launcher. Literally all downsides and no upside. You're fricking stupid.
You have yet to answer exactly how one would go about attacking a submerged inland silo be it on the great lakes or a backyard pond. You are just trolling because you have no answer that isn't bullshit.
Just the Nampo fresh water reserve area alone could hide a few Seawolfs let alone a few dozen launch platforms, you really don't understand how much these sorts of conversations make the world hate shills like you do you? I really can't understand why Russian shills do this sort of thing, it really doesn't help your cause.
>take reentry vehicle
>set war head to surface detonation
>hydrostatic shock travels through water and destroys silo
ezy pzy.
Putting the silos under water does nothing more than drastically increase maintenance while reducing the capability of the missile. You're not even a good troll.
You don't seem to understand scaling. Nork lakes are comparable to Lake Mead, Conniston or Loch Ness, than Erie or Superior. the former are "big" lakes but they are dwarfed by The Great Lakes, nevermind the Ocean. You could physically fit boomers in those lakes but it would be like putting Sharks in an Aquarium and a Nuclear device going off in that lake, (nevermind the several probably used in a full strike on High-priority target like these) would probably knock out their capability. They would be first strike wepons, and are too expensive for that role.
Because Nork lakes and The Great Lakes are not really comparable. Hell, I'm fairly sure the surface area of The lakes is greater than all of N.Korea. Lakes are big but so are boomers, and also you need facilities to house and maintain the boomers on the lake, because you're not getting a canal for a full boomer up there or doing land transportation. This makes the location of all the lakes with boomers very obvious. Locating subs is easier in Littoral waters (or in our case a lake) than in deep ocean beacuse subs are forced to be near the surface where they can be spotted and thus are easier to hit.
But lets consider the role of boomers as second strike weapons, its concealment and mobility allowing to be almost anywhere in 2/3 of the World's surface making it harder to hit in a first strike, but we now know where they are within a small area. Now when a first strike would occur the weapon to try and destroy the sub would be nuclear, most likely, and one thing nukes do very well is create shockwaves, which propagate very well in water. See Operation Crossraods. As such a ground detonated nuclear weapon, or one with a delayed fuse to enter into the water would be sufficent to use against the sub and the lethal range for a weapon of this sort would be large, potentially as large as the lake itself (depending on exact size), making the sub very vulnerable in a first strike, even if "underway". This then restricts them to a first strike role.
But if you've got a first strike weapon that is geographically restricted, why waste money on the sub, docking, sub crew and shore side personnel when you could just build an ICBM silo or TEL. The sub would also restrict the max size of missile, thus range and payload, when compared to a silo. Anyone with a half decent commercial sattellite could see the build up and you are also concentrating much more force in one location than silos which can be spread out, increaing their survivability.
Nukes big, lakes small
Everywhere is different. For NK I would go with a rail racetrack. They have remote areas with multiple steep valleys of the right size, where tunnels can be drifted then connected together in loops of dedicated or semi-dedicated railway. The rail is more long term supportable than road vehicles, road racetrack could be an option too.
Imagine being on a nuclear sub in the great lakes. That would be the most maddeningly boring shit of all time. You literally have nothing to do and zero threats. Just patrol back and forth endlessly waiting for the order to nook
Why do you think it's any different in the open ocean?
>all the disadvantages of subs and silos
>none of the advantages
It's a mystery.
There are at least two asiaticshills in this thread that unironically believe 50 meters of water would be more than enough to wildly complicate nuclear target planning, if not outright offer total protection to any critical defense infrastructure underneath.
This reminds me of a thread from the early months of the Ukraine invasion where a tankie was arguing 120mm flachette had replaced HE, and that no one in NATO can even field HE shells anymore.
You might think they're trolling.
They're not, they're really this moronic.
I mean, you're fricking moronic and don't understand just how heavy water is. Which I'd expect from a stupid c**t.
>you're fricking moronic
>It is apparent that the SHIPJACK was subjected to a pressure wave of great severity. It is believed that reflections caused local peaks of even higher pressure. The circular hull is more resistant to such an attack than non-circular hull. The non-circular parts of the ships were damaged to such an extent that a complete collapse must have been imminent. Despite these severe distortions, the structural welding was almost 100 intact and only the forward torpedo room would have flooded had there been no failure of fittings. From damage to the SHIPJACK and also to the APOGON, it is concluded that the lethal range of an underwater explosion of an atom bomb of the type used in test B is in the order of 950 yards.
I'd like to note that, because of how water works (hint: it's non compressible and if you ramp up the energy you put into it you just, well, boil more water, in 3D space btw) the relationship between nuke size and kill radius of underwater targets is not linear.
So yeah, 950 yards anons. 0.86 km. Against a submarine, which, because it's a submarine, has to be shaped like a submarine. An actual barge specially built for this task could be made to be buried underneath some quantity of soil/gravel/etc with a perfectly cylindrical body, reducing the kill radius somewhat.
But no, laugh at the supposedly stupid north korean poster that you've invented in your heads. Frick you people have ruined this website.
>you people
>first /k/ post 3/18/24
>he thinks he's a mod
no, I can just recognize when people are totally deaf to board culture and haven't been here for long.
>oh ehm gee, why do people push back when I post moronic bullshit over and over again?! they act like it's been a problem for years here or something! They must be new!
golly, if only you'd been here a while.
The US and China... and about a dozen other countries have deep water harbours to protect nuclear submarine fleets from sabotage. Like a missile silo for a ship.
Did you know they dig tunnels under water, they don't even connect to land just straight into the sea floor like an earthworm to protect them from depth charges. I don't know how they don't just get buried, maybe they only use the holes to hide from dragnet searches or something.
And it's not just subs, most of these actually exist for intercontinental torpedoes, which are effectively piloted like torpedo boats through very shallow water, and then sunk under water to hit enemy fleets or coastal positions.
Why assume they harbour in lakes? These are silos, there's no point putting them inland behind a bottle neck. There are counties with US Naval assets that don't even know it, the Americans just tunnelled into the side of their country to hide nuclear mines and torpedoes. The Americans also built a nuclear bomb the size of a container ship which they're going to scuttle in open water, theory being the explosion will be so big that China couldn't even approach the sunken bomb.
are you just jibbering mindlessly to bump your dead thread.
shut the frick up, moron and go back.
>why not the Norks
Their lakes are too small, a nuke detonated within a few km from a submarine will sink it, if you can't sink it you can also use pin-down tactics to prevent effective launches. Not to mention there are conventional air dropped torpedos you can spam into a small lake
> underwater silo
so... a submarine... bruh...
>> underwater silo
>so... a submarine... bruh...
A submarine is a horizontal silo.
i replied to this thread last night. i don't really give a shit about best korea or their ability to do something like this, but for states like US or RUS it seems like a neat concept. they both have plenty of huge lakes. i'm sure there are some engineering challenges involved, but the idea seems workable. on a large enough lake, using some sort of support system to move it around to complicate first strike to neutralize the "silo" would be a worthy endeavor for them to ensure some second strike capabilities.
essentially a semi submersible underwater barge, basically just holding the missiles. being towed around by onshore cables. pretty long cables, but you get the idea. it's probably moronic, but an interesting concept.
This is unironically, completely, and irredeemably fricktarded.
>An actual barge specially built for this task could be made to be buried underneath some quantity of soil/gravel/etc with a perfectly cylindrical body, reducing the kill radius somewhat.
By trying to make the baffingly stupid pond-SSBN work, you've gone full circle and invented a ground based missile silo.
>fails to say why and continues to shitpost
putting nukes in your fresh water supply is bad for the most obvious of reasons