CV32

I knew Trump was very good at "triggering" the frailties of the left, the SJWs and the liberal snowflakes of the world, but I honestly had no idea he was capable of wrangling the DPRK regime into acting on his behalf at the very moment he supposedly needed a distraction. Now that is skill, lol. As for "sabre-rattling" I think it was actually Kim who was ratting the sabre. Or, rather, the transporter-erector-launchers. If Kim actually acts on his threats one of these days, I doubt very much that Korea will be the "least" of anyone's problems. Nuclear war tends to roll like that.

Scenario doesn't call for them, but you are of course free to grant yourself nuclear release and experiment with that option.

How many Tomahawk cruise missiles did you expend?

Since these discussions tend to spark the creative juices, I have uploaded a scenario of interest. It is my first in nearly two years, so I hope it is enjoyable. It is by no means an easy scenario, which perhaps ought to give pause to the subject matter.

File Name: Fire and Fury File Submitter: CV32 File Submitted: 23 Aug 2017 File Category: WestPac Fire and Fury A Harpoon Commander's Edition scenario for the Westpac Battleset. This scenario is designed for play by the BLUE side, and requires database HCDB2-170714 or later. Long suspected of having a nuclear weapons program, the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) caused worldwide alarm when it tested its first atomic bomb in 2006, in spite of years of negotiations aimed at preventing just that. In parallel with the Bomb itself, the Hermit Kingdom also pursued the means to deliver it. And in July 2017, barely a decade after first becoming a nuclear power, the DPRK demonstrated what appeared to be the first successful test of a potential intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). This time around, there was a very different personality sitting behind the Resolute desk in the Oval Office. A man who declared in no uncertain terms that the North Korean regime would face the 'fire and fury' of American military power if they threatened to use their newfound weapons against the United States of America. Click here to download this file

Its a very uncomfortable position to be in, to say the least. There is no assurance of safety in this world. Even less so in a nuclear world. You can take some comfort in the fact that deterrence seems to have worked for the past 68 years, but that must come with the admission that some of that period was also very uncomfortable. I think Kim is striving to preserve his regime through deterrence, but he doesn't know how to play the 'game'. Overt threats, blackmail, and criminality do not mesh well with a policy of deterrence. It is, instead, a mutual understanding that must necessarily come with a level of trust, even if that trust is built on something like the fact that both sides believe in MAD. There is no trust in the Kim regime, except a faint hope that he isn't feeling suicidal. Destroying the threat - especially by nuclear means - is a rather desperate option. But if the goal is an assurance of safety from Kim, which as I said does not really exist, what are the other options? None of them are obvious or easy.

See the Issue Tracker section of the website and the HC Beta Testing sub forum, and more particularly, the Defect Tracking sub forum.

I played the scenario from the Blue (US/UK) side, controlling the brand spanking new Queen Elizabeth carrier and a pair of frigates. Probing flights by Russian maritime reconnaissance aircraft, mostly Tu-142 Bear F types, were warned off by friendly Typhoon fighters performing CAP but they continued to press the intrusion, resulting in the opening of hostilities. Three Russian submarines were later detected - a Kilo and two SSNs (a Sierra and an Akula II) - and these repeated the behaviour of refusing to turn away. They were sunk by air dropped torpedoes. Minimum victory was achieved with 2:18:56 to go.

Nuke North Korea now: It's the only option (Washington Examiner)

UK F-35B - on final approach to QEC (Royal Aeronautical Society)

Having the box checked or unchecked does not affect the formation patrols set up for the AI side by the scenario author. It only toggles the formation patrols for you that may have been pre-set by the author. (Your use of the term 'AI' here - something usually reserved for referring to the computer controlled side/player - may be confusing the issue.) You can set up patrols in both formation patrol as well as external, 'long range' patrols (albeit there without the benefit of formations).

After Action Report : Big Lizzie and Big George A scenario by Broncepulido for the EC2003 GIUK battleset and the HCDB2-170714 database. Spoilers apply! * * * * * * I played this scenario from the Blue side, commanding the combined QE and Bush carrier groups in the North Sea, together with a handful of shore based aircraft assets. At game start, friendly reconnaissance assets quickly discovered a combined Russian/Chinese surface action group in the North Sea centred around the battlecruiser Peter the Great and a Chinese Type 052D destroyer. Although the sides are immediately hostile from start, I chose to permit Red to make the best overtly hostile move. In doing so, I purposefully avoiding approaching the Russian/Chinese SAG too closely. It didn't take long, however, before probing flights by Su-27 and Su-35 Flankers attacked my friendly CAP and maritime reconnaissance assets, as well as my AEW&C. I lost a French Atlantique 2 in the resulting skirmish. Red having drawn first blood, I turned my attention to the enemy SAG. The SAG was too far from its own air cover to guarantee its survival, and its fate was very quickly sealed. A major barrage of Russian antiship cruise missiles from the SAG, fired against the combined RN/USN carrier group, was repelled. Combined SEAD and ASuW strikes against the Red SAG subsequently dismantled it piece by piece, and minimum victory was achieved with 4:06:06 to go. Thanks to Broncepulido for providing the scenario.

Following in the footsteps of those who have gone before, she likely would have went to the bargaining table and gave concessions. (Like Obama did with Iran.) I do believe there are Korean scenarios. Look in the Westpac database.

While much of the tweeting is nonsense, it is no better or worse than sitting on your hands and letting things transpire into what they are today. I prefer Trump over what Hillary might have done in this situation ... a thousand times over.

The DPRK has been participating in the same pattern of Threaten-Bargain-Threaten that it has been instigating for a very long time, long before Twitter came along. Only that more recently its threats have not been met by the same tired concessions that have come from previous administrations.

Wreckage From USS Indianapolis Located In Philippine Sea (Paul Allen website)

This is an aside, but the term "new standard" should probably not be used in reference to the HCDB2. The original HCDB remains the 'standard' database for use with the stock scenarios supplied with the sim, and the HCDB2 will not work with those scenarios.

Introduction into service moved to 2019 at the earliest.

Russia’s ‘Mini Red October’ Subs Will Lack Advanced Propulsion System (The Diplomat)

Did a Glowing Sea Creature Help Push the U.S. Into the Vietnam War? (The Atlantic)

The secret to North Korea’s ICBM success (IISS Voices)

Thanks, Enrique, for your suggestions. Been a busy summer, but there should be a new version before the end of the month.

The Reagan CSG has apparently returned to port at Yokosuka. The America ARG is in Malaysia, and the Bonhomme Richard ESG is still in the Coral Sea.

Aegis and SM-3 Block IIA could potentially have a shot at intercepting an IRBM in the terminal phase, or in the ascension phase, if the warship(s) was in the right place at the right time. But I think it would be quite difficult to keep the engagement secret.