Replacing the Subs

[JLB50]

The ongoing story... but wishing won't make it so

The Hollowing Out of Kim Jong Un’s North Korea​

Despite North Korea’s presence on the world stage with its nuclear weapons, the Kim dynasty is slowly and irreversibly breaking down.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un continues to accelerate the country’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs. At the same time, North Korea has been a key supplier of arms to Russia as the war in Ukraine progresses. Both of these actions are critical threats to South Korea, the United States, and Japan. But the outside world is missing an equally important development with immense implications for stability on the Korean Peninsula—the slow and irreversible breakdown of the Kim dynasty.

The Hollowing Out of Kim Jong Un’s North Korea

Despite North Korea’s presence on the world stage with its nuclear weapons, the Kim dynasty is slowly and irreversibly breaking down.

carnegieendowment.org

Not saying it won’t happen but I’ll believe it when I see it. I remember reading reports just several years ago about how Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was going to lead to the collapse of Putin’s regime and pretty much the whole country. Remember all the speculation about Putin’s obvious signs of serious health problems? And how all the international banking and other economic sanctions would lead to a quick financial collapse of Russia? And how the Russian army would throw down their weapons and walk away from the Ukrainian battlefields a la WW1? How the Russian elite would stage a palace revolt and assassinate Putin?

Yes, East Germany collapsed and was reunited with its western counterpart. And, yes, the USSR bit the dust. But I suspect that I will be pushing up daisies by the time North Korea ultimately fails. And that will happen only when communist China itself also fails. Until then Rocket Man will continue to rattle his sabre on the international stage as his people starve.

 

[YZT580]

Not saying it won’t happen but I’ll believe it when I see it. I remember reading reports just several years ago about how Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was going to lead to the collapse of Putin’s regime and pretty much the whole country. Remember all the speculation about Putin’s obvious signs of serious health problems? And how all the international banking and other economic sanctions would lead to a quick financial collapse of Russia? And how the Russian army would throw down their weapons and walk away from the Ukrainian battlefields a la WW1? How the Russian elite would stage a palace revolt and assassinate Putin?

Yes, East Germany collapsed and was reunited with its western counterpart. And, yes, the USSR bit the dust. But I suspect that I will be pushing up daisies by the time North Korea ultimately fails. And that will happen only when communist China itself also fails. Until then Rocket Man will continue to rattle his sabre on the international stage as his people starve.

I wouldn't be quite so pessimistic. Remember Nicolae Ceaușescu. He thought his regime would last a long time too.

 

[Furniture]

Not saying it won’t happen but I’ll believe it when I see it. I remember reading reports just several years ago about how Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was going to lead to the collapse of Putin’s regime and pretty much the whole country. Remember all the speculation about Putin’s obvious signs of serious health problems? And how all the international banking and other economic sanctions would lead to a quick financial collapse of Russia? And how the Russian army would throw down their weapons and walk away from the Ukrainian battlefields a la WW1? How the Russian elite would stage a palace revolt and assassinate Putin?

Yes, East Germany collapsed and was reunited with its western counterpart. And, yes, the USSR bit the dust. But I suspect that I will be pushing up daisies by the time North Korea ultimately fails. And that will happen only when communist China itself also fails. Until then Rocket Man will continue to rattle his sabre on the international stage as his people starve.

It seems that Russia is just prolonging the fall, which is likely to make it worse.

Part of the reason the USSR fell was the war in Afghanistan. The war in Ukraine is more deadly, and the rest of the world is punishing Russia more. People may have jumped the gun on calling the collapse of Russia, but Russia's future is far from secure.

To bring this back to subs, the ability to reach out an touch people unseen may become inrecreasingly important as the world continues to destabilize.

 

[MilEME09]

To bring this back to subs, the ability to reach out an touch people unseen may become inrecreasingly important as the world continues to destabilize.

not just touch,, but actually achieve strategic results, If we are firing missiles from a sub, I want to level a factory or hanger, not damage a plane

 

[PHughes]

not just touch,, but actually achieve strategic results, If we are firing missiles from a sub, I want to level a factory or hanger, not damage a plane

If that plane is sub hunter that has a fix on you, you will pray you have anti aircraft missile you can use to eliminate the threat

 

[MilEME09]

If that plane is sub hunter that has a fix on you, you will pray you have anti aircraft missile you can use to eliminate the threat

and i was referring to strategic targets, what you just described is a tactical target

 

[Underway]

If that plane is sub hunter that has a fix on you, you will pray you have anti aircraft missile you can use to eliminate the threat

You have to be sure. A missile launch is a perfect datum as to where the submarine is. If you miss or there are other ASW assets in the vicnity you're done. From a cost analysis (lives, money, training, infrastructure), trading an MPA for a submarine is cheap. Lose rook, take queen. Not that you want to trade ever.

 

[OldSolduer]

I wouldn't be quite so pessimistic. Remember Nicolae Ceaușescu. He thought his regime would last a long time too.

Oh he was a gem - and his wife too. I recall the news coverage after they were both executed by firing squad.

A proper thing IMO.

 

[KevinB]

Back in the 80s when it was the Mulroney Gov looking at Nuc boats its was the USA that was closing doors on us. They didnt want us to have them.

Do we think in 20-25 years SK wont care what the US has to say ?

That narrative keeps getting rehashed, it’s wrong. It is wrong as the Canadian Government was the government that walked away from that. The USG supported the RCN SSN’s.

The USN actively opposed the Polar Nuke Ice Breaker, not the Subs. One may suspect that this is would have been a capability that the USN and USCG didn’t have.

 

[Nvlgzr]

That narrative keeps getting rehashed, it’s wrong. It is wrong as the Canadian Government was the government that walked away from that. The USG supported the RCN SSN’s.

The USN actively opposed the Polar Nuke Ice Breaker, not the Subs. One may suspect that this is would have been a capability that the USN and USCG didn’t have.

USN opposed Canada getting nuc subs, but Reagan overruled the navy. There was much American opposition to allowing the Brits to sell Canada the Trafalgers. I think the notion of nuclear ice breakers was decades before Mulroney.

 

[KevinB]

USN opposed Canada getting nuc subs, but Reagan overruled the navy.

That’s a significant over generalization. The USN had concerns over the implementation of the SSN’s into the RCN.
There are some ridiculously long documents on the fact that they felt the RCN was unprepared and ‘irresponsible’ in its handling of many safety related issues, not to mention concern, and gave long lists as to what needed to be corrected for the RCN to have a successful SSN fleet.

There was much American opposition to allowing the Brits to sell Canada the Trafalgers. I think the notion of nuclear ice breakers was decades before Mulroney.

Two different nuclear Ice Breaker programs have come up from what I remember. I remember some of the Beatty one due to a presentation that was given at my school at the time.

 

[Nvlgzr]

That’s a significant over generalization. The USN had concerns over the implementation of the SSN’s into the RCN.
There are some ridiculously long documents on the fact that they felt the RCN was unprepared and ‘irresponsible’ in its handling of many safety related issues, not to mention concern, and gave long lists as to what needed to be corrected for the RCN to have a successful SSN fleet.

Two different nuclear Ice Breaker programs have come up from what I remember. I remember some of the Beatty one due to a presentation that was given at my school at the time.

I found a not so long document from the War College that lines up with what you’re saying : https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA437607.pdf

 

[KevinB]

I found a not so long document from the War College that lines up with what you’re saying : https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA437607.pdf

If you are really bored the USN has a lot of achieved stuff.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

That narrative keeps getting rehashed, it’s wrong. It is wrong as the Canadian Government was the government that walked away from that. The USG supported the RCN SSN’s.

The USN actively opposed the Polar Nuke Ice Breaker, not the Subs. One may suspect that this is would have been a capability that the USN and USCG didn’t have.

The US did not oppose Canada getting nuke boats. Otherwise, the UK, which uses US nuclear technology would have been unable to enter its own nuke boat in the competition. The Us did not enter As the US because at the time, its yard (Electric Boat division) producing nuke boat was running flat out to produce boats fro itself. But they did not oppose the UK producing for Canada. It was the end of the cold war that did Canada in.

 

[YZT580]

The US did not oppose Canada getting nuke boats. Otherwise, the UK, which uses US nuclear technology would have been unable to enter its own nuke boat in the competition. The Us did not enter As the US because at the time, its yard (Electric Boat division) producing nuke boat was running flat out to produce boats fro itself. But they did not oppose the UK producing for Canada. It was the end of the cold war that did Canada in.

not as much as Pierre did. He was getting Canada out of it all long before the Russians got mired in Afghanistan. Bases closed in Europe, unification, budget cuts, all contributed and are all on his doorstep

 

[OldSolduer]

not as much as Pierre did. He was getting Canada out of it all long before the Russians got mired in Afghanistan. Bases closed in Europe, unification, budget cuts, all contributed and are all on his doorstep

PET - traitorous and look where electing him got us.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

not as much as Pierre did. He was getting Canada out of it all long before the Russians got mired in Afghanistan. Bases closed in Europe, unification, budget cuts, all contributed and are all on his doorstep

As much as I love to hate Pierre, like many others here , he is entitled to us using actual facts, not the ones we would like to hang around his neck improperly.

Trudeau senior had nothing to do with the Mulroney era Nuclear submarine acquisition plans and their cancellation. That happened well after he retired from politics, and he didn't interfere in this policy of Mulroney.

Similarly, Unification is not on his doorstep. Unification was a Lester B. Pearson era piece of policy. It was put forward by the then defense minister Paul Hellyer in 1964 (white paper) and enacted in February 1968, two full months before Trudeau won the leadership of the party and became PM. In fact, Hellyer proposed the whole thing for political reason, thinking it would help him win the leadership convention and become PM. As the main opposition within the party, he did not endear himself to Trudeau, who moved him to Transport after becoming PM. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of his Unification policy.

But the policy had been passed in legislation and Trudeau simply didn't want to fight a defense battle (a department for which he cared nothing) all over again so soon, and took the easy way of letting things take their course.

 

[YZT580]

As much as I love to hate Pierre, like many others here , he is entitled to us using actual facts, not the ones we would like to hang around his neck improperly.

Trudeau senior had nothing to do with the Mulroney era Nuclear submarine acquisition plans and their cancellation. That happened well after he retired from politics, and he didn't interfere in this policy of Mulroney.

Similarly, Unification is not on his doorstep. Unification was a Lester B. Pearson era piece of policy. It was put forward by the then defense minister Paul Hellyer in 1964 (white paper) and enacted in February 1968, two full months before Trudeau won the leadership of the party and became PM. In fact, Hellyer proposed the whole thing for political reason, thinking it would help him win the leadership convention and become PM. As the main opposition within the party, he did not endear himself to Trudeau, who moved him to Transport after becoming PM. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of his Unification policy.

But the policy had been passed in legislation and Trudeau simply didn't want to fight a defense battle (a department for which he cared nothing) all over again so soon, and took the easy way of letting things take their course.

true, the subs were in the Mulroney era but it was the PET era that fostered the notion that we didn't need a military. There were lots of causes other than Pierre but he was the source

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

That much, I can agree on.

 

[Prairie canuck]

Agreed. I honestly done ever see a point, in my life time anyway, where SK will be independent of US influence and protection; kind of like us.

Which means, I suspect that even if SK wanted to build nuc boats with/for us the Yanks will shut that down most rikki tik.

I would surmise the Trump Government has increasingly cashed in it's Influence chips around the world. If the technology developed is not "made in America" and is proprietary to South Korea and Canada then it's not for the US to say if it can be built and used.