Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

Sometimes I have to just shake my head and wonder about the state of the world.



1st, any nuclear deterrence gets its strength from the creditable ability to follow through if required. The actual use of the weapons would be a failure. The idea is that should the bad guys create a situation where the only option was nuclear weapons, then they would be used. This deters the bad guys from crossing the line. This has been the case in Korea since the 50�s. It�s just not talked about much and people have forgotten.

War between the US and North Korea is not a decision that the US is free to make. The South would be the ones putting it on the line, so the call is theirs. And they are fat and happy, so why would they opt for war? If the North invaded, they would take all of South Korea in two weeks, they have to. After two weeks they are out of fuel and food, having to rely on captured stocks to supply their army.

Should it come to war and in such a way as to allow the US to move ground forces into the region, then North Korea becomes a footnote of history in less than thirty days after the start of hostilities. While the north�s army is large and has big numbers on paper, they are not combat effective. They would do little more than create a target rich environment on a modern battle field. It would be a standard battle. AA suppression, followed with decapitation of the command and control. Then what remained of the air force would be eliminated. After that we would probably hold them in place with arty and air strikes until evidence of starvation among the ranks became visible. Then the armed forces of South Korea would move in and provide humanitarian aid. Wild cards would be gas and/or biological, but then you only ever get to use that stuff once. The real reason we don�t go to war is the cost to the US tax payer. There is very little to gain, and it�s not really in our backyard.

As to decapitation, we don�t do that anymore����But all things change. If the north invades the south, the US will respond with TNWs. Both Koreas know this. China knows this. The North Korean military knows this. There will be no war. A hard look at the NK�s military will show you that it is modeled on that of China. The primary threat is seen as coming form the local population, not an outside invader. Sure they talk the talk, but what are they really saying? �The US will invade us so we need a big army.� But the army is just a bump in the road against the power of America, so what is its real reason to exist? Its reason for being is to insure the continued existence of the North Korean dictatorship and the elite society that allows a few to benefit at the expense of many. North Korea is no longer a communist state; they have used the threat of war to become a hereditary military dictatorship. Those at the top live well, those at the bottom starve. The army�s main job is to keep the people in line, suppress the food and energy protests and prevent exchanges of information with the rest of the world.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

True, and personally I agree that there are likely still some non-military options left. I was simply trying to make the point that if it comes to that it's going to have to be something other than US action that resolves the matter. It's like we are trying to bluff at cards when the other side knows full well that we've got a crap hand.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

He is not the best president we ever had, but then he is not the worst either. What the heck, lets take a look at all this.

He failed to win the war on terror and invaded Iraq for no reason. Well he has failed to win the war, but he did move the front lines out of the US. And he did invade Iraq with little cause. Nothing more than countless cease fire violations, an attempt on the life of a past US president, the violation of a UN aid package agreement. And some faulty intelligence on the state of military developments in Iraq. But then Iraq is the key to the region. And it was a soft target and we knew it. And we had to do it with a rather small force, but then I guess we have to place that at the feet of the previous administration. They were the ones who said that there was no need for a large standing army in a post Soviet world.

As to the only remaining super power, just exactly why is that? Do you have an explanation? Or did you just pluck that from an article in Screw magazine. I guess that�s were you got your rules of diplomatic engagement from too. You seem to have forgotten that we are at war with one of them, and that the other committed an out right act of war against America. Sure they had some bad advice from the French but they did it anyway.

But in getting back to your post, I have to agree that Bush is not made of the same stuff as some other presidents. But then I also have to than god that he isn�t made of the same stuff as his predecessor. By the way, how many Americans has the bush administration killed with the paramilitary forces of the FBI and ATF since taking office? Same question for the Clinton administration? What happened to those thousands of domestic terrorists that the Clinton administration was after? Oh, never mind, I forgot, they turned out to just be NRA members.

In closing, I have to agree, he is not a great president. But he is in no way the worst. Not even if we only look at the last two. I realize that the popular press, Time, Newsweek, New York Times, Washington Post, Screw, Penthouse, Rolling Stone, and The Enquirer might say otherwise, but then they were all for Gore weren�t they!

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

This is a little more difficult than any of the posts indicate. Our actions in Korea are linked to agreements made by Kissinger back in the seventies. They are linked to more than one other country in the region, and they are strategic in nature. If the US wanted a war in Korea, we could win it with forces on hand today, and not pulling down the forces in Iraq. It would take a little while to re-theater them, as they have been working with another region in mind, but in a pinch they could begin moving in a week. Korea is small narrow peninsula, easily reachable in total from naval air. And at least one carrier is in the region right now, Kitty Hawk in the Indian Ocean IIRC. And Stennis and Eisenhower are surge ready. So we are not totally without the ability to use force. We just don�t have the will. And let�s face it; we won�t have the will unless the North invades the South. You don�t have to occupy the whole of North Korea to win. Just prevent the movement of fuel and supplies. And not for very long, the NK army can not live off the land unless they invaded the south, and you can bet that scorched earth would be the first thing they found south of the mine fields. Some reports have them draining fuel from parked armored vehicles to heat their barracks in the winter. The Chicoms could tip the scales, but they have other scales to worry about, billions of bucks on one side and isolation on the other.

Oh and to set an issue straight here, everyone who was at war with North Korea in the 50�s is still at war today. And that was a large part of the free world of the day. All that was signed was a temporary armistice. The UN is the lead agency on that front, so how could the US ever sit down alone with NK and sign a peace treaty. That is a tired old ploy that the North has been using for thirty years, but people still fall for it.

Iran is doing the same thing. They invaded US soil and took the US embassy, severing diplomatic relations with the US. Now that they have removed the tools of communicating diplomacy, they complain of not having face to face talks. Then after we agree to the talks we will then spend years arguing about protocols, since none will be in place. Anyone old enough to recall the same problem with the NK�s? Not me, I was a little after that but I read about it. And I do recall the same issue with the NV�s; over a year to decide on a table and where to sit. That�s why civilized nations have and use rules of diplomatic contact. Do any of you realize how many low level meetings took place between the US and the USSR before the big boys met in Iceland? And Iran wants to just put aside their past acts and have a sit down in a mater of weeks. Makes me think that perhaps they have a schedule to meet and they are some months short at the moment. Spend some time hashing it out with the US, then let the EU back out. Then start over with the French and have the US kill the deal. Then before you know it, you have the Persian bomb. I�ll bet Iran had to refigure their calendar after the partial event in Korea. What a joke, we use bigger bangs than that just to get things going good on a B83. I also wonder who will have to go salvage the bomb site. I�d bet that the NK�s would spend several thousand lives to recover a few ounces of reusable material.

And in closing, nuclear containment is a myth. It�s used as a diplomatic cattle prod, a tool of state policy. There was never a remote hope of keeping them out of the third world. And there is no hope of keeping them out of the hands of non-state groups. It was only a fight to delay the spread until the defenses caught up. We can�t even keep France from testing them, how could we keep Iran or Korea from doing it? So one day in a country near you, someone will use one on a neighbor, then receive anther in return. But what the heck, if we kill off a few billion and block out a lot of sunlight, we can solve global warming and the energy problem all at once. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

I agree with what you say. I was just trying to pre-empt all the gung ho eejits who will jump in with cries of "Why don't we jes' nuke all them pesky Ko-reens off the daymn map?"

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

I'm not denying anything you've said in theory, but you seem to be assuming the US would be bringing their full military might to bear. In practise, given the current US political climate, I can readily imagine the generals complaining bitterly about being sent in with only the minimum forces to do the job, which would surely result in a less straightforward victory.

Then there's the whole policing/ peacekeeping/ reconstruction/ insurgency quagmire currently giving the US such a headache in Iraq.

There, now you've put your finger on it.

If the US/the west does go into NK, I sincerely hope they learn from Iraq and make preparations for the peace as they do for the war. I think they would though, they have nothing to gain from anarchy in NK like they did in Iraq. That said, I don't think they'll go in. Either China will bully some kind of compliance out of Kim, or the world will simply lay siege to him.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

You're right, sooner or later someone is going to nuke someone else. Likely there won't be any notice either, just one day a city will cease to exist.

It's not a question of preventing nukes from being used; that's impossible. Sometime, someone crazy enough, mad enough or psychotic enough will either obtain a nuke, or come into power in a country that already has 'em, and say "what the hell" and blow someone up. The question is how long that day can be delayed, and what will be done once it can be delayed no longer.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

My opinion of the matter...

First off, they aren't even sure it was a nuclear detonation. The effect could have been simulated using conventional explosives, since if it was a nuke, it was a tiny one. However, regardless of which it was, it's quite obvious why NK did it. As usual, they're going to use their nuclear technology to blackmail more aid out of the rest of the world. It's an ongoing cycle; North Korea starts up their nuclear program, the rest of the world has a fit and agrees to try to bribe NK to stop their nuclear program. Any and all aid that goes to NK then is used to keep the army fed and loyal to those in power, which in turn keeps them in power. Then, a year or two later, they start up the nuclear program again and start the cycle over again.

I think that if it was a nuclear detonation, they may have exhausted their supply of enriched uranium or plutonium to do it. Think about it; it was a tiny explosion, by nuke standards. It was either a) a conventional explosives look-alike, b) a very small nuke, or c) a fizzle. If A, then NK's threat is no more than before. If B, NK still isn't much more of a threat than before. If C, then NK still has a fair ways to go before they actually have serious nuclear technology.

As for NK's excuse that they want to develop "the bomb" out of self-defence, well that's a load of ****e, and I think everyone knows that. Neither the US, nor the rest of the world has any interest in attacking NK unless NK does something way out of line. Just look at all the nations on Earth who could have nukes but don't (Canada for one). Are we afraid the US is going to invade, simply because we don't have a nuclear deterrent? I think not.

There may only be 8 or 10 countries in the world that are maintaining a nuclear arsenal, but I bet there's 5 times that many who could build a bunch of good sized nukes within a couple months if they put their minds to it. In short, NK's excuse seems rather hollow...but then, everyone already knew that, right?

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

Like Japan.

A Japanese nuke would be the size of a briefcase and level most of North Korea.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

There are couple of other options available that just might force China to stop supporting NK without turning it into the Chosen Autonomous Province of the PRC that just might kill the once-communist, now-fascist regime:

We threaten China with the prospect of a fully-nuclearized, politically-able, militarily self-sufficient Japan and Taiwan if the NK problem isn't dealt with swiftly,

We let the Kim family have safe exile in China in exchange that he turn over everything to the SK authorities,

We (any and every sensible nation) threaten to boycott the 2008 olympics, citing the NK threat and human rights abuses and China's tacit support, which just might cause the chinese to drastically cut support in order to save face,

We put restrictions on chinese trade, that is to say, incoming chinese goods and outgoing investments to china, citing some vague political reason or whatnot but giving subtle hints as to link it with the situation on the Korean peninsula,

Make the chinese turn a blind eye to the North Korean refugees that want to go south by giving the chinese authorities incentives to let them freely go to other countries such as Vietnam or Mongolia (but not to embassies) and thereby bleed NK dry,

or the US makes a trade: Taiwan for North Korea; The US rescinds all military agreements made with Taiwan in exchange for China's guaranteed non-involvement with North Korea.

All these options are unattractive, and none of them are foolproof; in each and every one, China could always bargain for more, call the US' bluff, or just simply dishonor the agreement, but these are the options that doesn't involve the potential death of 10s of millions of people and the wrecking of the world's major and budding economies.

Not just might, the chinese certainly would: They have a million Korean-Chinese that speak both Mandarin and Korean ready to be used as political commisars or whatnot at their disposal, and the chinese have been active in their historical reevaluation (read: revisionism) in portraying that Goguryo, an ancient kingdom that straddled Lower Manchuria and Northern Korea (that probably never was Chinese or Korean as we know them today) as a chinese tributary that was founded by chinese and was populated by ancient chinese.