PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Little Joe on April 17, 2017, 03:06:18 PM
-
This is an exercise in speculation.
If N. Korea were to launch what we thought was a nuclear tipped ICBM,
What would Trump do?
How would it turn out?
Even if we blew it up 4 seconds after launch, NK has beaucoup conventional missles already targeting S. Korea, where millions of people live. Could we thwart such an attack?
This sounds like a Clancy novel. But in a Clancy novel, we would of course, win.
How do you think this would go down in real life?
I think a few conventional missiles would get through, but I also think we would reduce N.K. to rubble and the reunification of Korea would begin, and it would be a good thing.
-
I'm hoping this is a case of statesmanship. Kim jung shithead and his elders have been treated with kid gloves for far too long and have gotten their way at the expense of the world's security. Trump is challenging that. I'm sure his hope is that NK will back down and become sane. Of course the chance of that happening is pretty much nil, but I think China has figured out Trump is serious and are getting in line to pressure NK to knock it off. I also read that a few more aircraft carriers moving to the area. I think at the end of the day that if Jung un or whatever his name is, decides to act out, his military capabilities will be hammered.
It's a bad situation that has been going on for far too long.
-
This is an exercise in speculation.
If N. Korea were to launch what we thought was a nuclear tipped ICBM,
What would Trump do?
How would it turn out?
Not a single person really knows.
Even if we blew it up 4 seconds after launch, NK has beaucoup conventional missles already targeting S. Korea, where millions of people live. Could we thwart such an attack?
The THADD system certainly will knock down more than a few. However, you are correct that NK has a substantial number of conventional missiles, some of which may be nuclear. Either way South Korea will be decimated. If NK does launch an attack, we then have the choice of attacking via nuclear - easy, quick and complete, or via conventional - long time frame, messy and incomplete.
sounds like a Clancy novel. But in a Clancy novel, we would of course, win.
Where is Jack Ryan when you need him?
How do you think this would go down in real life?
I think a few conventional missiles would get through, but I also think we would reduce N.K. to rubble and the reunification of Korea would begin, and it would be a good thing.
In the event of a shooting war, don't believe there would be much left to unify. A truly crazy guy with nukes - no good answer. The Chinese have a greater problem than we do, if there was a simple solution, believe that would already have been implemented. The Chinese have been walking a thinner line that I believe most realize. They do not want a collapse of NK which would leave them with a hungry, unruly mob with some powerful weaponry right on their southern border. Conversely, an angry, nuclear ICBM equipped NK isn't in their best interests either. Believe the Chinese will re-double their efforts to "calm" Kim down. Whether that has any effect, is to be seen. This may come down to the Chinese agreeing to a pre-emptive strike, possibly a joint effort. The problem is that whoever does the strike better get all the launchers the first time..
-
Activate the Star Wars shield and go have some coffee...
It is not the missiles that would be the biggest concern for Seoul, it would be the artillery. It is well dug in, camouflaged and about the distance away from Seoul as Baltimore is from Washington. The estimate is that they will fire something like a half million rounds of ammo in the first hour of a war. The hour after than 70% of their artillery pieces will cease to exist, but the damage will be done.
-
Activate the Star Wars shield and go have some coffee...
It is not the missiles that would be the biggest concern for Seoul, it would be the artillery. It is well dug in, camouflaged and about the distance away from Seoul as Baltimore is from Washington. The estimate is that they will fire something like a half million rounds of ammo in the first hour of a war. The hour after than 70% of their artillery pieces will cease to exist, but the damage will be done.
A couple of MOABs at the start of hostilities would take out more than 70% of that artillery before they get a round off. I doubt we will do that, but even a bunch of Tomahawks, or an overflight of armed B52s with Sattelite guidance and smart bombs can wreak havoc.
Not to mention, three carrier battle groups can inflict a whole lot of damage in a hurry.
http://www.trunews.com/article/pentagon-commits-three-us-aircraft-carriers-to-north-korea
-
A couple of MOABs at the start of hostilities would take out more than 70% of that artillery before they get a round off. I doubt we will do that, but even a bunch of Tomahawks, or an overflight of armed B52s with Sattelite guidance and smart bombs can wreak havoc.
Not to mention, three carrier battle groups can inflict a whole lot of damage in a hurry.
http://www.trunews.com/article/pentagon-commits-three-us-aircraft-carriers-to-north-korea
No, not if they strike first and you know we won't. It will take us time to scramble, to process intel, to assign targets. You over estimate the power of the moab and under estimate the number of artillery pieces they have. There are several thousand of them spread across hundreds of square miles. The effective destruction radius of a moab is under 1/2 mile and we only have 20...make that 19 of them. And they have to be delivered by a cargo plane.
Even if we strike first, we will not take out their artillery because we just don't know where it all is. My estimate of 70% is probably way too high. We would eventually get them all, but it would take time.
-
My first sentence was that this is an exercise in speculation, so your thoughts are as good as mine.
No, not if they strike first and you know we won't.
Actually, I don't know that. One of Trump's advantages is that the enemy doesn't either. It may boil down to we "think" they are about to strike and we react first and fast.
It will take us time to scramble, to process intel, to assign targets.
That activity is already taking place, and has been for some time.
You over estimate the power of the moab and under estimate the number of artillery pieces they have.
That may well be true, but then again, N. Korea probably OVER estimates their own ability.
There are several thousand of them spread across hundreds of square miles. The effective destruction radius of a moab is under 1/2 mile and we only have 20...make that 19 of them. And they have to be delivered by a cargo plane.
Perhaps you are underestimating our capability. When was the last time we had a President that would allow the military to pick targets and tactics? Our Military has been like a ZR1 Corvette being driven around the suburbs.
Even if we strike first, we will not take out their artillery because we just don't know where it all is. My estimate of 70% is probably way too high. We would eventually get them all, but it would take time.
The North Korean military has been indoctrinated even more than ours have that they don't take ANY action without orders. Without a chain of command issuing orders, they will be frozen in place.Taking out their command and control structure would be our first target.
I know this is all just far-out wild-assed speculation, but honestly, I don't see any other way of resolving this situation.
-
I did some more reading in speculation. N Korea is reported to have about 8500 conventional artillery pieces, 2000 rocket launchers and 2000 rocket assisted artillery pieces with an increased range. Of these, it's the latter two that can reach Seoul. So there's about 4000 targets that need to be eliminated quickly.
As proven in Vietnam and Iraq, a carrier can launch about 100 sorties per day in sustained operations, not all of which can be ground strike sorties, maybe half - but they can burst to 150 sorties per day for two days. If we dedicated the entire B-52 fleet to the problem, we could get another 50 high altitude bombing sorties. A cruiser carries 90 tomahawks and must be reloaded to launch more - there are 5 cruisers with each carrier, so if they're fully loaded with TLAM-C (vs the B ship attack model), that would be 450 tomahawks per carrier group or 1350 in 3 groups. Is it worth noting that would be over 2 billion dollars worth of missiles? They won't all be land attack missiles and they won't shoot all of them at artillery. Let's say 500 will go to artillery destruction.
So, my math on this is 500 missiles on opening day, then 225 strike sorties and another 50 bombing sorties each day for two days, shifting toward 150 strike sorties and 50 bombing sorties per day by the end of the first week. Assuming the piece counts are accurate and 2 hits per sortie, that's 100 days to hit everything once, by air. Meanwhile there is a ground war going on and how that goes is an entirely different equation.
-
No, not if they strike first and you know we won't. It will take us time to scramble, to process intel, to assign targets. You over estimate the power of the moab and under estimate the number of artillery pieces they have. There are several thousand of them spread across hundreds of square miles. The effective destruction radius of a moab is under 1/2 mile and we only have 20...make that 19 of them. And they have to be delivered by a cargo plane.
Even if we strike first, we will not take out their artillery because we just don't know where it all is. My estimate of 70% is probably way too high. We would eventually get them all, but it would take time.
You don't try to take way the firepower, you take away C&C. If there's no "management", the soldiers go home.
China can do this any time they want to. Obviously they have their reasons for not doing it.
-
The real problem China has is that they don't care for how Kim Un Il is behaving and used to have quite a bit of influence on his father. Junior seems more demented and less realistic, so China may just take him out as a message to the rest of the puppet state and tell them to cool their jets. It would be cheap, leave little, to no room for North Korea to retaliate and solve everyone's problem with one strike.
The Norks don't care for the psycho-clown any more than we do, based on what I've read, and don't want to find out if Trump would put a halt to their favorable trading status with us over it.
-
I think this is as much a test for China as it is for Trump, and that li'l Kim will lose regardless.
We saw this same build-up about Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi army, and then about fortress Baghdad - in a matter of days it was all over but for the crying.
China will blink and they will take Kim to heel, they are in no position to push Trump/the US as they are far more reliant on us than we are on them. He gave them a carrot with backing away from the currency manipulator issue (a mistake IMO), they need to put up or he'll come back at them.
There will not likely be a shooting war, and if there is it will be over far more quickly than we are accustomed to, Trump strikes me as far more Sherman/Patton and much less Clinton/Obama - I'd expect Pyonyang and every other installation to be leveled with C&C removed in a surprisingly large, brutal (read that collateral damage be damned) and coordinated attack involving more than the US - just enough of the details to have been already shared with China, to share with li'l Kim, to get him to back off.
'Gimp
-
I concur Gimp.
-
I think this is as much a test for China as it is for Trump, and that li'l Kim will lose regardless.
We saw this same build-up about Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi army, and then about fortress Baghdad - in a matter of days it was all over but for the crying.
China will blink and they will take Kim to heel, they are in no position to push Trump/the US as they are far more reliant on us than we are on them. He gave them a carrot with backing away from the currency manipulator issue (a mistake IMO), they need to put up or he'll come back at them.
There will not likely be a shooting war, and if there is it will be over far more quickly than we are accustomed to, Trump strikes me as far more Sherman/Patton and much less Clinton/Obama - I'd expect Pyonyang and every other installation to be leveled with C&C removed in a surprisingly large, brutal (read that collateral damage be damned) and coordinated attack involving more than the US - just enough of the details to have been already shared with China, to share with li'l Kim, to get him to back off.
'Gimp
Sorry, but it wasn't over in a matter of day. The ground war lasted 100 hours, but we spent months building up troops.
The math I did was on the specific situation on how long would it take aircraft to eliminate the artillery threatening Seoul. The answer is, not nearly quickly enough to prevent them from firing. Obviously that isn't the only thing going on, but taking out 4000 targets is going to take time no matter how it's done. Regardless of what you shoot first, even if you destroy command and control elements, if a shooting war starts, Seoul is taking artillery fire. Probably a lot of it.
Korea is mountainous, there will be no blazing flanking maneuver by the tanks. It will be a grind.
-
Speaking of Korea, I have read some pretty horrible stories on the condition of their people. I think I believe it, but I used to believe all Russian girls were fat and muscle bound.
Boy was I wrong about that.
If we were to behead their government, how would the common peasant react; after the initial fear that the Americans were going to eat their babies was dispelled.
-
Sorry, but it wasn't over in a matter of day. The ground war lasted 100 hours, but we spent months building up troops.
The math I did was on the specific situation on how long would it take aircraft to eliminate the artillery threatening Seoul. The answer is, not nearly quickly enough to prevent them from firing. Obviously that isn't the only thing going on, but taking out 4000 targets is going to take time no matter how it's done. Regardless of what you shoot first, even if you destroy command and control elements, if a shooting war starts, Seoul is taking artillery fire. Probably a lot of it.
Korea is mountainous, there will be no blazing flanking maneuver by the tanks. It will be a grind.
Totally different situation, with different needs. I suspect a drone, guided missile and airpower-centric attack, not a ground war - the NORK's can't cross the DMZ any better/faster than we can, and the focus would clearly be on C&C and artillery, along with the limited NORK air force, then ground troops in known locations.
Again, I seriously doubt it devolves into any kind of shooting war, but if it did, the US or any coalition would simply overpower the NORK's, in short order, with a primary focus being shielding Seoul and eliminating C&C - the risk is too high for li'l Kim, without his army he can't control the North, something the Chinese I am sure are drilling into his head at every turn right about now.
And China has a lot to lose if the civilian population of the North tries to stream into China.
Just my opinion.
'Gimp
-
So, my math on this is 500 missiles on opening day, then 225 strike sorties and another 50 bombing sorties each day for two days, shifting toward 150 strike sorties and 50 bombing sorties per day by the end of the first week. Assuming the piece counts are accurate and 2 hits per sortie, that's 100 days to hit everything once, by air. Meanwhile there is a ground war going on and how that goes is an entirely different equation.
So, um, what about the South Korean air force? And its own considerable artillery resources? Why is the task of taking out North Korean artillery left to only the U.S. Navy? The South Koreans will be promptly executing counter-battery fire from their own artillery and air force. The North Korean artillery will need to engage in fire-and-move if they wish to survive any length of time, greatly reducing their rate of fire. Dug-in positions may not be survivable.
Also, it isn't militarily wise for the North Koreans to target civilian targets exclusively, such as greater Seoul. A considerable number of their artillery must be reserved for military targets and reserves.
I found some articles on the claim Seoul would not be "flattened" by North Korean artillery should all-out war break out:
"Can North Korea Really "Flatten" Seoul?"
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6212/north-korea-and-flattening-seoul/ (http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6212/north-korea-and-flattening-seoul/)
"How North Korea Would Retaliate"
https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/how-north-korea-would-retaliate (https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/how-north-korea-would-retaliate)
"Why North Korea Can’t Flatten Seoul"
https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/03/11/why-north-korea-cant-flatten-seoul/ (https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/03/11/why-north-korea-cant-flatten-seoul/)
A contrary opinion:
"A Look At North Korea's Artillery Shows Why No One Wants War"
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-no-one-in-korea-wants-war-2013-4 (http://www.businessinsider.com/why-no-one-in-korea-wants-war-2013-4)
-
If we were to behead their government, how would the common peasant react; after the initial fear that the Americans were going to eat their babies was dispelled.
Now wait a second, what about the spoils of war?
-
Anyone think that we don't have all kinds of defensive capability along the border?
-
So, um, what about the South Korean air force? And its own considerable artillery resources? Why is the task of taking out North Korean artillery left to only the U.S. Navy? The South Koreans will be promptly executing counter-battery fire from their own artillery and air force. The North Korean artillery will need to engage in fire-and-move if they wish to survive any length of time, greatly reducing their rate of fire. Dug-in positions may not be survivable.
Also, it isn't militarily wise for the North Koreans to target civilian targets exclusively, such as greater Seoul. A considerable number of their artillery must be reserved for military targets and reserves.
I found some articles on the claim Seoul would not be "flattened" by North Korean artillery should all-out war break out:
"Can North Korea Really "Flatten" Seoul?"
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6212/north-korea-and-flattening-seoul/ (http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6212/north-korea-and-flattening-seoul/)
"How North Korea Would Retaliate"
https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/how-north-korea-would-retaliate (https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/how-north-korea-would-retaliate)
"Why North Korea Can’t Flatten Seoul"
https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/03/11/why-north-korea-cant-flatten-seoul/ (https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/03/11/why-north-korea-cant-flatten-seoul/)
A contrary opinion:
"A Look At North Korea's Artillery Shows Why No One Wants War"
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-no-one-in-korea-wants-war-2013-4 (http://www.businessinsider.com/why-no-one-in-korea-wants-war-2013-4)
I think I said that there was a whole 'nother war going on. You emphasized that we had THREE carriers in the area. I was demonstrating that three carrier groups would not stop the North Korea artillery in a reasonable time and even added in our B-52s. IMHO, I think it's likely that the north korean army reaches Seoul long before artillery is destroyed. I missed three Air Force squadrons, but they're not a huge addition.
As to the South Korean Air Force, it exists. There are roughly 400 strike aircraft which would complement the 320 on the three carrier groups.
I think we don't have sufficient defensive capabilities along the border. Certainly not enough to stop an entire army coming south.
-
You emphasized that we had THREE carriers in the area.
That was in Little Joe's post (I had not previously posted to this thread,) though I see now why you only discussed naval resources.
-
That was in Little Joe's post (I had not previously posted to this thread,) though I see now why you only discussed naval resources.
Yeah, that was me that brought up the three carrier battle groups, which now seems to have been drawn from "fake news" anyway.
But I asked for speculation. In return, in typical "spin" fashion, I merely get criticisms. Why would anyone think I asked what would happen if we ONLY used the carrier battle groups. Or only allowed the Navy to play. The B52s I mentioned aren't part of the battle group. And we would probably use B1's and maybe even B2s too. If we were to engage in such a conflict, I imagine we would also find a use for the US troop and weaponry already stationed in Korea, as well as other nearby American bases where are forces are already staged. This isn't like Iraq where we had to get permission to move troops and supplies to unfriendly countries for temporary staging bases. And as has already been brought up, the S. Koreans have a credible defense. And I suspect we have special forces that have been working on way to take out a significant piece of their command structure. And I bet that right now in the Pentagon, there is a 3d relief mockup that pinpoints virtually every fixed missile launch site in N.K.
So, on to the speculation, here is some of mine: If we thought the DPRK were on the verge of launching an attack, either conventional or nuclear on S. Korea, and if we decided to forcefully retaliate, I am sure there would be some S. Korean casualties before we left N.K. smoldering.
-
Semi-necropost (forum software is telling me the thread hasn't been posted to in 120 days, but topic still relevant).
Latest news: NK launches ANOTHER missile over Japan:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/north-korea-fires-missile-toward-sea-of-japan/news-story/3e5b762a2ad7345eff3fe9b4217fa62f (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/north-korea-fires-missile-toward-sea-of-japan/news-story/3e5b762a2ad7345eff3fe9b4217fa62f)
I saw this movie before, though and can guess the response of the rest of the world:
-
Perfect, Jim!!
-
If we have a 100% effective defensive weapon we should just start intercepting these things.
-
If we have a 100% effective defensive weapon we should just start intercepting these things.
Agreed. Problem is if we fire the intercepts and they miss this only gives the little troll more reason to keep firing them in defiance.
China could end this mess today with very little problem, but they won't. For too many years the world has tolerated the Kim's and their bullshit and no we have a real mess on our hands (our meaning the free world).
A war on the northern peninsula of Korea would be quick but result in mass casualties of civilians and be fought on China's doorstep. It would also result in civilian casualties in South Korea and possibly Japan.
Maybe someday the world will figure out you can't deal or negotiate with tyrants.
-
BTW, which Presidential Candidate said that the border of NK is literally just miles away from SK?
-
BTW, which Presidential Candidate said that the border of NK is literally just miles away from SK?
I don't know. Which one?
Whichever one said it, they were right as there is a 2.5mile wide DMZ between the two countries.
-
I don't know. Which one?
Whichever one said it, they were right as there is a 2.5mile wide DMZ between the two countries.
Agreed. I've been inside of the DMZ. It's now like a nature sanctuary because of being undisturbed of 50 years (with the exception of all the land mine fields). A true no mans land.
-
Sheila jackson Lee did claim that if North Korea nukes America, she was afraid it would cause Trump to start a war.
-
Sheila jackson Lee did claim that if North Korea nukes America, she was afraid it would cause Trump to start a war.
“I’m concerned about our nation. I’m concerned about what happens when we get that call about North Korea in the middle of the night,” said Jackson Lee. “You have in office an individual that is unread and unlearned.”
http://www.indianapolisrecorder.com/news/article_4ceeef4e-1326-11e7-b52b-07815b0e9edd.html
"Maybe I should offer a good thanks to the distinguished members of the majority, the Republicans, my chairman and others, for giving us an opportunity to have a deliberative constitutional discussion that reinforces the sanctity of this nation and how well it is that we have lasted some 400 years, operating under a constitution that clearly defines what is constitutional and what is not," she said.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/sheila-jackson-lee-thinks-the-constitution-is-400-years-old/
MORE STUPIDITY:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-constitution-is-400-years-old-and-more-pearls-from-sheila-jackson-lee
-
If we have a 100% effective defensive weapon we should just start intercepting these things.
Respectfully disagree. Our defensive capability right now is shrouded in secrecy. Part of the probing of the NK effort is to discover, and evaluate our response capability. Better we let them lob their missiles into the sea than to reveal the ability the US has to intercept and/or destroy.
Most of us recall 'star wars' from the Reagan admin when we developed what the Soviets thought was an iron shield against their strategic weapons(it was not). I can tell you without giving up secrets that our capability in that area has gone forward with great effect. There have been setbacks, and there have been mistakes made, but overall our ability to intercept and destroy in the boost phase is much much better than it was. In the late 90s we were tracking and destroying SCUDs at a decent rate(~82%? IIRC). Since then, the targeting, and acquisition has improved dramatically. Particularly if we can get an airborne asset with a big radome on top within 400NM.
Long ago, I was lucky enough to be stationed with the ROK Marines in the norther part of the country. They are a tough, dedicated and well equipped force which will fight to the last man keeping NK from breaching the border. It was my opinion that they were always on what we would call 'alert 1' status. They trained as if the NK soldiers were massing at the border(in some cases, they were).
the US has moved some B-ONE(the Bone) assets from TX, and SD closer to NK around Japan, and also southern SK. The Bone is a strategic asset without parallel in the air. Its unrefueled combat radius includes all the bases we have in Japan, meaning it can load up, take off, fly right over NK, deliver the ordinance, and fly home without ever talking, or meeting with anyone along the way. Carrying int/ext 125k Lbs in ONE sortie, and getting on station within about an hour from Japan, a continuous mounted aviation operation would destroy much of NK within a few hours. BTW, this is only the strategic bombing capability, not including the fighter, and other assets in SK.
Of course, off-shore assets also have a role to play, but I know very little about the Naval side of the equation. Suffice to say, we would own the air, and own the sea, and SK would own the land part(we would help).
Most of the sabre rattling from NK is for internal consumption. It's a simple form of taunting to see what they can get away with, and what we will disclose about our capability. It would be very short work if the US decided to actually remove the military from NK. I suspect that Kim would flee at the first sign of aggression into China, and that China would harbor him and family for as long as it takes. Strategic thinking beyond destruction of the military is at the whim of whomever is the US prez, but at this point, I would almost surely think that Trump would re-unify the Koreas under a banner of parliamentary republicanism, much like the SK already have. Our assets in SK are fantastic, and they would get stronger with a takeover of NK. China would scream and wail, and shake their fist, but ultimately - they would take it up the ass, because we are the source of ~60% of the GDP. Messing with the output from Chinese factory would be devastating to their economy, and political power base.
Edit to add: The response from the US wound NEVER go nuclear, even if they used a nuclear first strike.
Edit; I said that the Bone was moved from MT, and I missed the correct state of SD. Ellsworth AFB. Apologies
That's my story, and I"m sticking to it.
-
China is about 1,300 miles from S. Korea. One of their main concerns about reunification of Korea is that they would lose the buffer between them and Western forces.
Seems to me that if we promised them about a one or two hundred mile DMZ between China and Korea if they don't interfere with our efforts, they might find it in their best interest to cooperate; Just in case we are pushed to a military solution.
-
Serendipity strikes again. Just found this little blurb about the aviation assets currently avail over Korea:
http://www.businessinsider.com/north-korea-us-fighter-jets-fly-over-korean-peninsula-in-show-of-force-2017-9/#and-one-of-the-uss-two-b-1b-bombers-dropping-an-mk-84-bomb-onto-the-range-6
The person writing the article has done his homework, identifying the location of the flight as it transits from west to east just south of the DMZ
https://goo.gl/maps/H7KrUsCzUD72
The far eastern port of Sokcho is a strategic asset for SK. flights which run north of Sokcho are generally considered 'hostile' by NK, and are an affront to the cease-fire agreement signed by the two Koreas. I don't know the actual wording, but there is language in the cease fire that each side would not fly or navigate on the sea in a way that is aggressive or taunting behavior. Of course, NK does this kind of thing all the time to the south.
Recall that each Bone(B-1B Lancer) can deliver 125k Lbs of ordinance withing a matter of minutes from this location. Including stand-off attack weapons.
Betting dollars to donuts we have a boomer sitting dogo(silent, deep) in the middle/north of the Yellow sea right now. don't know what depth they can launch their payload, but if I was designing an attack portfolio, they would be sitting on the bottom, just above their launch depth, with tubes dry. All they have to do is flood tubes, open doors, push button. bye-bye NK.