Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/07 19:04:31


Post by: whembly


So... with the latest missile developments that is almost an ICBM, that can theoretically now reach Alaska and Hawaii...

Now what?

Keep in mind, that we're technically still at war... only that it's "on pause" now. So no formal agreement from UN or US Congress is needed to re-engage. (egads!!!)

https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/taking-north-korea-g20
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-idUSKBN19P02W
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/04/us/politics/trump-north-korea-missile-icbm.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-g20-northkorea-idUSKBN19S242
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449280/north-korea-icbm-test-crosses-red-line-nuclear-crisis

There are no good options... is... letting NK become fully nuclearized (sp?) the best option?

Seems to me, is that if we want to force China/RU to de-nuclearize NK... maybe the best card on the table for the US is to threaten support for Japan (or, more provocatively Taiwan) to build their own ICBM nukes?

Acquiescence the South China Sea to China in return for their help to de-nuclearize NK?

Re-engaging hostilities at the 38th parallel just seems too knarly.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/07 19:12:41


Post by: Tactical_Spam


I advocate for a parking lot.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/07 19:14:57


Post by: mrhappyface


Give Kim Jong Un the hug he clearly needs.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/07 19:15:08


Post by: whembly


 Tactical_Spam wrote:
I advocate for a parking lot.



I'm more partial to recognize China's expanded claim to the South Sea than that...


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/07 19:18:08


Post by: djones520


Status quo.

China doesn't want North Korea. They have a big enough issue as it is facing their welfare implosion in the next 10 years.

South Korea doesn't want to reintegrate. It will collapse their economy, bringing in millions of illiterate subsistence farmers.

None of us want that war, because the death toll would be horrendous. Millions dead in days.

Keep things as they are. It bloody sucks, but the option is the best of a bag of gakky options.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/07 19:18:25


Post by: jhe90


Whatever happens .

China will be involved but even they are losing patience with the the new Kim.
Plus he not visit as much as previous, abs seems to have less of a good relationship with China. One that was pretty solid under his Father and his father also visited Russia.

He cultivated at least semi friends better.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/07 19:34:10


Post by: Avatar 720




What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/07 19:43:38


Post by: Orlanth


So lets get this straight, North Korea can technically nuke parts of South Korea with a reasonable degree of possibility of it happening ad people are generally ok with that.

Now they have a 0.0000001% chance of nuking Alaska and people are panicking and wondering if the US should invade.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/07 19:44:07


Post by: Thargrim


Not sure, but if everyone keeps sittiing on their hands and NK keeps it up then eventually it will be to the point of no return. IMO I can't see any of this ending with anything but mass death.

If you don't neuter them now, then 10-20-30 years down the line the crap will still hit the fan. It's just a question of when...not so much an "if".


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/07 19:47:39


Post by: Frazzled


 Orlanth wrote:
So lets get this straight, North Korea can technically nuke parts of South Korea with a reasonable degree of possibility of it happening ad people are generally ok with that.

Now they have a 0.0000001% chance of nuking Alaska and people are panicking and wondering if the US should invade.


Won't someone think of the POLAR BEARS!

Alternatively totally back off. Announce the US is leaving in five years. If Sk wants to buy some nukes, sell them. Same for Japan. Move on and get out.

Remember NK can't exist without China, and China uses them as a bargaining chip.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Thargrim wrote:
Not sure, but if everyone keeps sittiing on their hands and NK keeps it up then eventually it will be to the point of no return. IMO I can't see any of this ending with anything but mass death.

If you don't neuter them now, then 10-20-30 years down the line the crap will still hit the fan. It's just a question of when...not so much an "if".


Point of No return for what? They will be able to nuke us, and we will be able to nuke them. UNless you're advocating using nukes on them now followed by fulls scale invasion in which case...you go first.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/07 19:49:15


Post by: whembly


 Orlanth wrote:
So lets get this straight, North Korea can technically nuke parts of South Korea with a reasonable degree of possibility of it happening ad people are generally ok with that.

Not sure I'd agree with "people are generally ok with that" assessment.

Now they have a 0.0000001% chance of nuking Alaska and people are panicking and wondering if the US should invade.

For a country as belligerent as NK, I think each time their missile technologies advances... you'd have to reassess your stance.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/07 19:50:34


Post by: JimOnMars


What if NK elects their version of Donald Trump? All it takes is one wacko in charge to turn Seoul to glass.

We are going to have to spend a trillion dollars bombing the gak out of them.

Might as well be now.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/07 19:52:46


Post by: Frazzled


 JimOnMars wrote:
What if NK elects their version of Donald Trump? All it takes is one wacko in charge to turn Seoul to glass.

We are going to have to spend a trillion dollars bombing the gak out of them.

Might as well be now.


As noted, you go. If SK wants to declare war they can go right ahead after we leave.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/07 19:54:13


Post by: whembly


I guess the big question, what is stopping NK and SK from signing a peace agreement with one another?

Is it simply nuke deterrance?





What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/07 20:12:42


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


Nuke it from orbit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 JimOnMars wrote:
What if NK elects their version of Donald Trump? All it takes is one wacko in charge to turn Seoul to glass.

We are going to have to spend a trillion dollars bombing the gak out of them.

Might as well be now.


You think North Korea has elections? Thats cute.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/07 20:26:43


Post by: djones520


 JimOnMars wrote:
What if NK elects their version of Donald Trump? All it takes is one wacko in charge to turn Seoul to glass.

We are going to have to spend a trillion dollars bombing the gak out of them.

Might as well be now.


The simple fact that you think a man who does stuff like this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2546506/North-Korean-leader-Kim-Jong-Un-executes-family-uncle-Jang-Song-Thaek.html

Is not worse then Donald Trump just shows how out to lunch you are.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/07 20:33:53


Post by: Kilkrazy


I can imagine a number of approaches.

In an earlier thread on this topic I proposed that we should drop $10 billion dollar notes with LSD on them over the countries' cities, and wait to see what happened.

If we are looking for more conventional approaches, let's consider war. The UN is technically at war with N Korea anyway, so it wouldn't be hard to take their continued provocations and illegal acts as a casus belli. Before declaring the cease fire rescinded, special forces teams should be infiltrated to identify high value targets such as fuel reserves. Then, a five pronged attack from Russia, China, South Korea and both coasts, supported by carrier forces and air forces from Japan. Hopefully it would not be met with fanatical resistance, but if it were, a careful advance with lots of air superiority would limit allied casualties and the defenders would collapse from lack of supplies.

Another method is subversion. Find a variety of inducements and support to organise a coup from within the top level of the N Korean political class.

A third method is to continue with the current policy of diplomacy but intensify it to cut North Korea off from the world and let it wither on the vine.

All these approaches need the support primarily of the Chinese.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/07 20:35:45


Post by: Frazzled




All these approaches need the support primarily of the Chinese.

I think we've found your problem right there.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/07 20:36:36


Post by: mrhappyface


 JimOnMars wrote:
What if NK elects their version of Donald Trump? All it takes is one wacko in charge to turn Seoul to glass.

We are going to have to spend a trillion dollars bombing the gak out of them.

Might as well be now.

Wait, Donald Trump nuked South America!? Oh my god! Oh... wait, no he hasn't.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/07 20:41:54


Post by: djones520


 Kilkrazy wrote:
I can imagine a number of approaches.

In an earlier thread on this topic I proposed that we should drop $10 billion dollar notes with LSD on them over the countries' cities, and wait to see what happened.

If we are looking for more conventional approaches, let's consider war. The UN is technically at war with N Korea anyway, so it wouldn't be hard to take their continued provocations and illegal acts as a casus belli. Before declaring the cease fire rescinded, special forces teams should be infiltrated to identify high value targets such as fuel reserves. Then, a five pronged attack from Russia, China, South Korea and both coasts, supported by carrier forces and air forces from Japan. Hopefully it would not be met with fanatical resistance, but if it were, a careful advance with lots of air superiority would limit allied casualties and the defenders would collapse from lack of supplies.

Another method is subversion. Find a variety of inducements and support to organise a coup from within the top level of the N Korean political class.

A third method is to continue with the current policy of diplomacy but intensify it to cut North Korea off from the world and let it wither on the vine.

All these approaches need the support primarily of the Chinese.


The biggest issue is the thousands of artillery pieces, hidden in armored bunkers on the DMZ, zeroed in on Seoul. The outset of hostilities, Seoul gets erased.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/07 20:43:01


Post by: Kilkrazy


 Frazzled wrote:


All these approaches need the support primarily of the Chinese.

I think we've found your problem right there.


The Chinese are eager to take a bigger role on the world's stage, as witness their stepping up to the plate on the Climate Change Paris Accord. I think they could be persuaded.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/07 20:44:25


Post by: JimOnMars


By "elect their version of Trump" was a metaphor for the next guy to come to power who was categorically worse than all others who came before him.

Metaphor, guys, metaphor.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/07 20:49:54


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


 JimOnMars wrote:
By "elect their version of Trump" was a metaphor for the next guy to come to power who was categorically worse than all others who came before him.

Metaphor, guys, metaphor.


Bad metaphors.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/07 20:54:51


Post by: Orlanth


One way to solve Norh Korea is o offer blanket 'Idi Amin' deals, they would have to be offered to all important officials.

The deal Idi Amin was offered and took was that if he relinquished power then he, his family and his lieutenants would be given blanket and total immunity from prosecution and can live out their lives in a luxury gated community (not to be read as prison, but bearing some vague similarities hey could leave to do things, even relocate but through a managedprocess). It worked as an offer. Idi Amin died a free man in Saudi Arabia and Uganda had a government change without a bloody war.

Pinochet got the same offer, and accepted it then years later was arrested in the UK when the Blair government refused to honour prior treaties. This caused some problems for this program. and may be factored into why Saddam Hussein was offered similar but refused.

Pinochet's case make give the North Korean junta some pause for thought, however there is still hope and principal that it is easier to let a dictator get away with his crimes on a personal level if they give up power and don't force a war to remove them.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/07 21:00:03


Post by: Da Boss


I reckon if this problem was solvable, we'd have solved it already. Like djones520 says, any aggressive act could result in horrific causalities in Seoul, and everyone knows that. Unless we develop some sort of foolproof way to prevent that, we're limited in what we can do.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/07 21:02:34


Post by: whembly


 Orlanth wrote:
One way to solve Norh Korea is o offer blanket 'Idi Amin' deals, they would have to be offered to all important officials.

The deal Idi Amin was offered and took was that if he relinquished power then he, his family and his lieutenants would be given blanket and total immunity from prosecution and can live out their lives in a luxury gated community (not to be read as prison, but bearing some vague similarities hey could leave to do things, even relocate but through a managedprocess). It worked as an offer. Idi Amin died a free man in Saudi Arabia and Uganda had a government change without a bloody war.

Pinochet got the same offer, and accepted it then years later was arrested in the UK when the Blair government refused to honour prior treaties. This caused some problems for this program. and may be factored into why Saddam Hussein was offered similar but refused.

Pinochet's case make give the North Korean junta some pause for thought, however there is still hope and principal that it is easier to let a dictator get away with his crimes on a personal level if they give up power and don't force a war to remove them.

Don't think that'll work... lil' Kim is God-Emperor of North Korea.

Can't see him giving that up.

The current state is favorable for China... that is, having NK being a "thorn" to the West.

If Japan or SK starts amassing Nukes... that calculus may change.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/07 21:23:35


Post by: Easy E


We need that Oprah Meme where everyone gets a car, but replace it with Nukes.

That will show them.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/07 22:07:35


Post by: Ouze


 Da Boss wrote:
I reckon if this problem was solvable, we'd have solved it already.


Every problem is solvable, you just need the political will do so. The fact that North Korea now is just about capable of landing a nuclear weapon onto Hawaii and Alaska has changed the situation.

Every president since the mid-80s has kicked the can down the road, and now we're out of road.

I would still lean towards leaning on China - there has to be some sort of deal to be made.

War is really not a serious option, I don't think, all things being equal - there are just going to be too many casualties. Of course "all things being equal" isn't always a permanent state of affairs.



What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/07 22:12:51


Post by: GoatboyBeta


 Kilkrazy wrote:
IAll these approaches need the support primarily of the Chinese.


Yep either in a passive or active capacity China has to be on board. Until the Chinese get sick of N.Korea and decide to either take action themselves or cut them loose and look the other way, containment is the least worst option.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/07 22:48:42


Post by: KingCracker





ANY strategy that involves Patrick explaining how it works is fine with me. Ill at least hear the Starfish out.


Funny though I was just talking about when someone should do something with N. Korea.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/07 23:08:17


Post by: Orlanth


 whembly wrote:

Don't think that'll work... lil' Kim is God-Emperor of North Korea.

Can't see him giving that up.


True this, power is worth more than any amount of wealth or security as it offers importance and self direction.

However if North Korea goes too far China might be pressured and might have to re-organise the North Korean structure into something more stable (and a better puppet for themselves).

The whole point of [Corleone] 'make him an offer he cant refuse' [/Corleone] is that the target likely wants to refuse, but is unable to. It would not take much for China to find someone in North Korea who wouldnt mind being the next glorious leader, and as the Chinese are long term thinkers they likely have contingencies.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/07 23:12:33


Post by: jhe90


 Orlanth wrote:
 whembly wrote:

Don't think that'll work... lil' Kim is God-Emperor of North Korea.

Can't see him giving that up.


True this, power is worth more than any amount of wealth or security as it offers importance and self direction.

However if North Korea goes too far China might be pressured and might have to re-organise the North Korean structure into something more stable (and a better puppet for themselves).

The whole point of [Corleone] 'make him an offer he cant refuse' [/Corleone] is that the target likely wants to refuse, but is unable to. It would not take much for China to find someone in North Korea who wouldnt mind being the next glorious leader, and as the Chinese are long term thinkers they likely have contingencies.


Of course. Always some over looked relative with correct name.
Who would willingly gobalong with China in return for power, luxury and wealth.

Power is quite the valuble commodity.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/07 23:26:58


Post by: Howard A Treesong


 whembly wrote:


Seems to me, is that if we want to force China/RU to de-nuclearize NK... maybe the best card on the table for the US is to threaten support for Japan (or, more provocatively Taiwan) to build their own ICBM nukes?

Acquiescence the South China Sea to China in return for their help to de-nuclearize NK?


Arming Taiwan and Japan with nuclear weapons will upset the Chinese and massively feed NK's paranoia that the world is out to get them. It's not going to accomplish anything other than escalate NK aggression and an attack, as the US would respond in kind anyway whatever the nuclear status of Japan is. Adding more provocation hardly seems worthwhile when the US is already positioned to effectively counter attack, all just to piss off the Chinese.

Secondly, the South China Sea is not America's to give even before the many issues that would arise from China controlling it fully.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/07 23:35:00


Post by: jhe90


 Howard A Treesong wrote:
 whembly wrote:


Seems to me, is that if we want to force China/RU to de-nuclearize NK... maybe the best card on the table for the US is to threaten support for Japan (or, more provocatively Taiwan) to build their own ICBM nukes?

Acquiescence the South China Sea to China in return for their help to de-nuclearize NK?


Arming Taiwan and Japan with nuclear weapons will upset the Chinese and massively feed NK's paranoia that the world is out to get them. It's not going to accomplish anything other than escalate NK aggression and an attack, as the US would respond in kind anyway whatever the nuclear status of Japan is. Adding more provocation hardly seems worthwhile when the US is already positioned to effectively counter attack, all just to piss off the Chinese.

Secondly, the South China Sea is not America's to give even before the many issues that would arise from China controlling it fully.


Freedom of seas. What they gonna do sink a US warship for sailing in that south china.
They ain't that crazy. You can sail anywhere inside 12 miles . You be watched by all manner of gak but you can saike up to 12 nm


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/08 02:42:21


Post by: Grey Templar


Something has to happen.

The main issue is not necessarily that North Korea has nukes(that ship sailed long ago), nor that they continually do sabre rattling, nor that they are unstable enough to where they might push the button. It's that it is a combination of all 3.

North Korea could quite conceivably hand some nukes, or nuclear material, off to terrorists to use elsewhere. Or the wrong people could snag some when North Korea inevitably collapses. It might not be this century, but North Korea will eventually collapse. China is losing patience with their buffer state, especially since China is now much more economically tied to former opponents(who North Korea is at war with) enough to where China cannot support North Korea in an open war without totally destroying their own economy. This means North Korea will increasingly have nothing to lose as time goes on.

Both economic sanctions and direct military intervention would both end with North Korea being backed into a corner. It's just a question of which happens first, neither would be bloodless.

If North Korea collapses on it's own. You end up with a flood of refugees who would pour into both South Korea AND China, along with a splintered remnant of North Korea's government with a lot of military hardware and nothing to lose. Likely you have a massive free-for-all with North Korean troops fighting each other, South Korea, and the US(and possibly China). Nukes might get launched in this chaos, and at the very least you might find a bunch of nukes "disappearing" into the shadows to reemerge in the hands of terrorists later.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/08 03:20:39


Post by: ZergSmasher


Nuke the entire country from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Okay, maybe not that, but seriously, someone needs to deal decisively with Kim before he decides he wants to play rough with his new toys. I do like the suggestion of infiltrating special forces and rescinding the ceasefire, hitting NK hard before they have a chance to react. First priority should be any missile sites obviously, as even if he's losing I can see Kim deciding out of spite to launch a nuke at Seoul or, if his new missile has the range he claims, Honolulu.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/08 04:23:53


Post by: Grey Templar


You'd really also want to obliterate as much of their artillery as possible, since that is what would cause massive casualties in the south since much of it can be hit with conventional artillery.

They don't even need nukes to obliterate Seoul. It's well within the range of any and all artillery that North Korea has.

As for trying to nuke Hawaii. They might have the range, but the chance of them hitting it is probably small given their track record. Hawaii is a relatively small target, and any deviation is going to see that nuke splash relatively harmlessly in the ocean. Japan would be an easier target.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/08 05:08:41


Post by: BigWaaagh


Offer a $1b bounty on fat boy's head...that's right, $1b and $10m to each NK General that surrenders himself and his unit upon his death. $100m for every Nuke. Buy the melon-fethers off the old fashioned way. This would be chump change compared to the cost of an outright hostility with NK.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/08 08:17:09


Post by: jhe90


 Grey Templar wrote:
You'd really also want to obliterate as much of their artillery as possible, since that is what would cause massive casualties in the south since much of it can be hit with conventional artillery.

They don't even need nukes to obliterate Seoul. It's well within the range of any and all artillery that North Korea has.

As for trying to nuke Hawaii. They might have the range, but the chance of them hitting it is probably small given their track record. Hawaii is a relatively small target, and any deviation is going to see that nuke splash relatively harmlessly in the ocean. Japan would be an easier target.


Aye plus pearl will have missile defence capable warships there or on land too.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/08 10:27:00


Post by: Orlanth


 BigWaaagh wrote:
Offer a $1b bounty on fat boy's head...that's right, $1b and $10m to each NK General that surrenders himself and his unit upon his death. $100m for every Nuke. Buy the melon-fethers off the old fashioned way. This would be chump change compared to the cost of an outright hostility with NK.


This, modified a tad to remove the utter chaos it would cause, might actually work.

The Clinton administration acted smart after the fall of the Soviet Union, when portions of the vast Soviet nuclear infrastructure in newly independent territories was up for grabs. The directive, supported directly by the White House was that if any nuclear materials came up for sale, and they were doing so, the US operatives were given carte blanche to outbid anyone and everyone on the black market, basically putting out the message that nobody could outbid the US Treasury and the US was willing to buy all nuclear materials that entered the market. We still do not know how much this cost the US, but it killed proliferation very effectively and averted an enormous long term crisis.
I have a lot of respect for Clinton for that.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/08 10:28:52


Post by: StygianBeach


 BigWaaagh wrote:
Offer a $1b bounty on fat boy's head...that's right, $1b and $10m to each NK General that surrenders himself and his unit upon his death. $100m for every Nuke. Buy the melon-fethers off the old fashioned way. This would be chump change compared to the cost of an outright hostility with NK.


While I do not agree with the bounty idea, I think talking money and not war is a better solution.

I think bribing the ruling class of North Korea is a better solution than fighting them.

Give North Korea something to export then buy it at inflated prices, incentivise them with honey not the stick. They have been living under a big stick for a while now, and I think the ruling class are okay with that because it is the lower classes that have to pay that bill.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/08 14:12:56


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


 Orlanth wrote:
 BigWaaagh wrote:
Offer a $1b bounty on fat boy's head...that's right, $1b and $10m to each NK General that surrenders himself and his unit upon his death. $100m for every Nuke. Buy the melon-fethers off the old fashioned way. This would be chump change compared to the cost of an outright hostility with NK.


This, modified a tad to remove the utter chaos it would cause, might actually work.

The Clinton administration acted smart after the fall of the Soviet Union, when portions of the vast Soviet nuclear infrastructure in newly independent territories was up for grabs. The directive, supported directly by the White House was that if any nuclear materials came up for sale, and they were doing so, the US operatives were given carte blanche to outbid anyone and everyone on the black market, basically putting out the message that nobody could outbid the US Treasury and the US was willing to buy all nuclear materials that entered the market. We still do not know how much this cost the US, but it killed proliferation very effectively and averted an enormous long term crisis.
I have a lot of respect for Clinton for that.


That does sound like a workable solution. The biggest snag might be if someone who is motivated by some sort of fanaticism gets hold of nukes, as it'd be hard to bribe them, but otherwise sound.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/08 16:00:49


Post by: Grey Templar


 StygianBeach wrote:
 BigWaaagh wrote:
Offer a $1b bounty on fat boy's head...that's right, $1b and $10m to each NK General that surrenders himself and his unit upon his death. $100m for every Nuke. Buy the melon-fethers off the old fashioned way. This would be chump change compared to the cost of an outright hostility with NK.


While I do not agree with the bounty idea, I think talking money and not war is a better solution.

I think bribing the ruling class of North Korea is a better solution than fighting them.

Give North Korea something to export then buy it at inflated prices, incentivise them with honey not the stick. They have been living under a big stick for a while now, and I think the ruling class are okay with that because it is the lower classes that have to pay that bill.


That just means you'd be paying a lot of money to support slave labor. Buying their stuff and incentivizing them to export material will just encourage them to keep doing what they are doing. The ruling class has no motivation to allow change, they have access to limited luxury imports already. Giving them a legitimate source of income will just keep fueling them.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/08 16:57:04


Post by: Orlanth


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 Orlanth wrote:
 BigWaaagh wrote:
Offer a $1b bounty on fat boy's head...that's right, $1b and $10m to each NK General that surrenders himself and his unit upon his death. $100m for every Nuke. Buy the melon-fethers off the old fashioned way. This would be chump change compared to the cost of an outright hostility with NK.


This, modified a tad to remove the utter chaos it would cause, might actually work.

The Clinton administration acted smart after the fall of the Soviet Union, when portions of the vast Soviet nuclear infrastructure in newly independent territories was up for grabs. The directive, supported directly by the White House was that if any nuclear materials came up for sale, and they were doing so, the US operatives were given carte blanche to outbid anyone and everyone on the black market, basically putting out the message that nobody could outbid the US Treasury and the US was willing to buy all nuclear materials that entered the market. We still do not know how much this cost the US, but it killed proliferation very effectively and averted an enormous long term crisis.
I have a lot of respect for Clinton for that.


That does sound like a workable solution. The biggest snag might be if someone who is motivated by some sort of fanaticism gets hold of nukes, as it'd be hard to bribe them, but otherwise sound.


Sure fanatics might really want the nukes, but fanatics cant outbid the other guy if he has a blank cheque from the Federal Reserve. Money talks, so let it shout for you.

As for buying North Korea that wouldnt work directly. First China will have a say, second it will make the US look weak, third it is a mega U-turn and flies in the face of everyone agreeing to sanctions.

However paying China to get rid of the problem might work, as would agreeing to bankroll North Korea post regime change - which would still need Beijing backing, plus preferably a quiet going away bonus for Kim Jong Un, namely he gets to live out his days in a luxury estate in China, with prosecution immunity, if he goes quietly.

However it is played it needs Kim Jong Un not to be given an actual choice about going. successors hand picked, power undermined, promises made, finances prepared. It might not need US cooperation, though it would be best if Washington takes the initiative here. It will however require full Chinese cooperation, and they will have to agree to everything a priori.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/08 17:39:55


Post by: KingCracker


 BigWaaagh wrote:
Offer a $1b bounty on fat boy's head...that's right, $1b and $10m to each NK General that surrenders himself and his unit upon his death. $100m for every Nuke. Buy the melon-fethers off the old fashioned way. This would be chump change compared to the cost of an outright hostility with NK.



Yanno what? That would actually work. Ive said for a long time now the best way to deal with our current problem with terrorist groups is through good old fashion Capitalism! Get them all iPhones and Xboxes and in a generation or 2 they would rather wait for the next MetalGear game, than go out in the desert and build bombs. So buying the people of N. Koreas loyalty with cold hard cash would work too. At least the Generals anyways the common rabble have been so poor for so long they probably have little to no concept of cash-ola


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/08 17:41:14


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


I was thinking more along the lines of the fanatics being the ones to steal the nuke in the first place. If someone with a warhead gets insulted at the decadent West trying to bribe him or such.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/08 17:55:28


Post by: Orlanth


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I was thinking more along the lines of the fanatics being the ones to steal the nuke in the first place. If someone with a warhead gets insulted at the decadent West trying to bribe him or such.


Stealing nukes is hard for obvious reason that vetting is strong.

The only time nuclear materials have been on the open market in any significant quantity was post Soviet collapse, and while the vendors were immoral they still were sane enough to be on the inside to begin with. Selling nuclear materials for profit made sense to them, selling to crazies never did. The crazies wanted some and were motivated to get some and enough were in the right place at the right time, but even prior to the Clinton administrations policy they never got far in buying stock.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/08 23:42:02


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


 KingCracker wrote:
 BigWaaagh wrote:
Offer a $1b bounty on fat boy's head...that's right, $1b and $10m to each NK General that surrenders himself and his unit upon his death. $100m for every Nuke. Buy the melon-fethers off the old fashioned way. This would be chump change compared to the cost of an outright hostility with NK.



Yanno what? That would actually work. Ive said for a long time now the best way to deal with our current problem with terrorist groups is through good old fashion Capitalism! Get them all iPhones and Xboxes and in a generation or 2 they would rather wait for the next MetalGear game, than go out in the desert and build bombs. So buying the people of N. Koreas loyalty with cold hard cash would work too. At least the Generals anyways the common rabble have been so poor for so long they probably have little to no concept of cash-ola


That would be considered an act of War by North Korea and they would immediately pulverise Seoul before the bounty can have any discernible effect on the NK chain of command.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/09 01:14:28


Post by: BaronIveagh


 djones520 wrote:


None of us want that war, because the death toll would be horrendous. Millions dead in days.


This. People forget just how horrendous this would be. Even with China and the US on the SAME side,


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/09 05:16:57


Post by: Grey Templar


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 djones520 wrote:


None of us want that war, because the death toll would be horrendous. Millions dead in days.


This. People forget just how horrendous this would be. Even with China and the US on the SAME side,


Yes. But lets not forget that the situation is already horrendous. North Korea has most likely killed millions of it's own citizens through either imprisonment or policies which have lead to massive starvation of the masses.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/09 05:34:11


Post by: JimOnMars


 Grey Templar wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
 djones520 wrote:


None of us want that war, because the death toll would be horrendous. Millions dead in days.


This. People forget just how horrendous this would be. Even with China and the US on the SAME side,


Yes. But lets not forget that the situation is already horrendous. North Korea has most likely killed millions of it's own citizens through either imprisonment or policies which have lead to massive starvation of the masses.


This is very true. And remember our military has been planning this thing continuously for decades. I'll bet they know where a lot of the artillery is and the rest could be found within minutes of them firing on Seoul. Yes, there will be civilian casualties in South Korea, but not millions.

I think the North will give up within a few days.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/09 07:40:11


Post by: Witzkatz


 JimOnMars wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
 djones520 wrote:


None of us want that war, because the death toll would be horrendous. Millions dead in days.


This. People forget just how horrendous this would be. Even with China and the US on the SAME side,


Yes. But lets not forget that the situation is already horrendous. North Korea has most likely killed millions of it's own citizens through either imprisonment or policies which have lead to massive starvation of the masses.


This is very true. And remember our military has been planning this thing continuously for decades. I'll bet they know where a lot of the artillery is and the rest could be found within minutes of them firing on Seoul. Yes, there will be civilian casualties in South Korea, but not millions.

I think the North will give up within a few days.


Even if meticulous planning and all the right intel means a coalition force is able to neutralise the artillery AND the longer-range missiles AND the nukes quickly - I don't think giving up is something that their Dear Leader does. The best we could hope for would be for NK generals turning against Kim Jong Un, but they would probably also turn against each other. Even if a US-led force stomps the north in a straight war in a few days, I think the AFTERMATH will be worse than anything in Iraq and Afghanistan ever was. Jungle guerilla warfare, millions of starving-mad civilians in the forests and fields fueled by desperation...that would be the biggest humanitarian crisis since god-knows-when.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/09 09:26:21


Post by: Mr. Burning


Best scenario? Kim Goes and NK is run by a Junta which is given fairly free reign to direct internal affairs whilst overseeing cessation of hostilities with the South.
Real Politick suggests that it would suck to live that side of the border but would be less volatile for the rest of the region.

A military solution will probably end up with millions of 'free' yet starving and ideologically indoctrinated civilians left to their own devices upsetting the balance in the region.

Look back to the 1940's and the efforts it took to reclaim the larger part of Northern Europe and the time spent afterwards ensuring its integration and survival. That is what intervention in NK requires (If at all).





What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/09 15:02:16


Post by: Ouze


 BigWaaagh wrote:
Offer a $1b bounty on fat boy's head...that's right, $1b and $10m to each NK General that surrenders himself and his unit upon his death. $100m for every Nuke. Buy the melon-fethers off the old fashioned way. This would be chump change compared to the cost of an outright hostility with NK.


... this is the best idea so far, actually, and it would be 1/2000th the cost of the Iraq war, which was much smaller than this one would be.



What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/09 15:13:01


Post by: Relapse


In my my mind, I envision a group of world leaders dressed as Austrian nuns singing, "How do you solve a problem like Korea?"


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/09 15:15:27


Post by: Rosebuddy


 JimOnMars wrote:

I think the North will give up within a few days.


That's what they said about Iraq.


Invading would be endlessly stupid.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/09 17:05:35


Post by: BaronIveagh


 JimOnMars wrote:

This is very true. And remember our military has been planning this thing continuously for decades. I'll bet they know where a lot of the artillery is and the rest could be found within minutes of them firing on Seoul. Yes, there will be civilian casualties in South Korea, but not millions.

I think the North will give up within a few days.


Well, the only thing you got right was that the US military has been planning this for decades. And so has NK, with the assumption they've have to fend off the US.

You'd mostly lose the bet of about the artillery (it moves around a lot, and what is static is so heavily dug in that MOABs would be required to take out single emplacements) Seoul would die, as NK has stated, and as best anyone can tell is serious, that they would flood the city with nerve and blister agents. So goodbye Seoul. Picture Aleppo and make it every last neighborhood, as civilian gas victims outpace the hospitals ability t treat them.

I think that you utterly fail to comprehend the animosity between the Koreas at this point, or how savage and cruel the last war was. I do not think NK would surrender at all, as South Korea is already infamous in the north for their No Prisoners policy toward the north.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/09 18:24:34


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


Yeah, they're fanatics. Any war against North Korea could only result in a Pyrrhic Victory, with millions of South Koreans dead and Seoul razed.

I'd much prefer we didn't blunder into another Iraq War...only this one would be several orders of magnitude worse.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/09 18:34:12


Post by: TheCustomLime


We could build a virtual wall of anti-ballistic missile defenses around North Korea. Let Fat Boy and his cronies know they have no power since any nukes they'll fire will just blow up over their glorious nation. This would require, of course, China's cooperation in the matter.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/09 19:19:24


Post by: Vaktathi


I suspect that, in the event of a real war, North Korea would obliterate the area around Seoul in short order and collapse soon thereafter having accomplished nothing else.

Their military technology is base is largely 1940's/1950's era in many respects, what newer stuff they have isn't anything they have spectacular amounts of experience using in practice or real world conditions, and they simply don't have the leadership or logistics systems so support that equipment, much less an actual war effort. North Korea simply does not have the resources or logistical capability to fight a real war. NK has a GDP on par with Iceland, a nation of only ~300,000 people, while the South has a GDP (on its own) 75x higher than that of the North, with the full backing of the US.

Without Russia or China directly supplying the North with vast oceans of material (unlikely in this day and age, at least in the volume that would be required), North Korea simply cannot sustain an actual conflict, and extended contact with the outside world that a conflict would bring would be fatal to the North's political regime (and military discipline).


North Korea can level the area around Seoul fairly quickly, but not much else. I highly doubt the morale of the NK military forces is quite as stalwart as some are making it out to be, particularly once bullets go flying. Much the same was said of Iraq and its Republican Guard (a force which had a good deal of combat experience through the Iran-Iraq war and Kuwait), which pretty much melted once in contact with Western military forces. More to the point, I can imagine NK military discipline breaking down (much as happened in many places with the Red Army as it stormed into Central Europe) almost immediately in any sort of offensive action south as they run into the smorgasbord of food, entertainments, amenities, basic utilities, etc that the South enjoys.

North Korea knows it cannot possibly win a conventional war, and would be obliterated if it actually used nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapons are there as a political sabre, something to flash around to get what they want, and a last ditch "f**k you" option should they fall, which is really probably the biggest concern above and beyond anything else.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/09 20:57:29


Post by: Ouze


How effective would a CIWS be against conventional artillery? I'm sure Iron Dome would be overwhelmed, but what about batteries of Phalanx?


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/09 21:26:08


Post by: jhe90


They used them against stuff in Iraq but that was rockets not shells. They tend to be faster and harder to hit. Also rockets have a far more obvious firing method with smoke plumes.

And Israel I believe considered but also there was issues with shrapnel falling from ammunition fired or something like that.
Batteries maybe but even they would need to reload, and burn ammo quickly.

Also they could be overwhelmed anyway.


They are testing a CWIS laser.
That might be more effective as well light speed + no collateral damage and "infinite" ammo long as got power.

There idea was layers from Davids sling and anti ICBM to Iron beam and Dome against rockets and shells.



What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/09 21:31:38


Post by: Sanguinary Guardsman


NK's leadership wants to modernize their economy but that isn't really possible without access to international markets. The US wants NK to abandon its nuclear program. A diplomatic solution seems pretty self evident in this situation and the general picture of such a deal is pretty obvious. NK gives... cessation of nuclear weapons development/rockets. US gives NK a full peace treaty and normalized trade relations and a framework for integration with south korea in the future.

Obviously the details of such an agreement are complex but the general idea is not. Seems like it would be vastly cheaper than any military solution that has 0% chance for a positive outcome.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/09 23:25:29


Post by: Jihadin


 Ouze wrote:
How effective would a CIWS be against conventional artillery? I'm sure Iron Dome would be overwhelmed, but what about batteries of Phalanx?


Phalanx is short range hold your breath final line of defense like a 2 mile range. So that's maybe a four grid coverage. Since its tube artillery and Artillery fires in Batteries or Battery 8-12 tube a battery it'll be overwhelm and a bit ineffective since a plotted artillery fire deals with a location plus immediate surrounding area of the location. It won't be one round fired per tube. It'll be 5-6 rounds and move the Hell out to the next firing position.

I do believe SK, China, US of A hoping for a regime change of some sort. No ones wants to go in NK because of the terrain. I feel better if China has Peace Keepers there since everyone would agree with that even when we support the humanitarian effort to help the poor SOB's there.

Red Phoenix is a good read.

As for the nuke capable missile they haven't gone ICBM yet. They have a better chance nailing Okinawa and Japan. Pusan will more likely be hit. If they accomplish that then we're forced to stage out of Hawaii which then becomes a more worth while target. Since the UN becomes involve in the conflict I feel Australia will take some fire. By then China rolls in with Armor and Airborne units to get a freaking handle on the situation or their farmlands becomes contaminated north of NK and SE China thereby putting a severe hurt on their agriculture production alone. Doubt this though. I feel China would more likely roll in and set up a puppet government and keep a secure border between "US" and them


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/09 23:43:44


Post by: jhe90


 Jihadin wrote:
 Ouze wrote:
How effective would a CIWS be against conventional artillery? I'm sure Iron Dome would be overwhelmed, but what about batteries of Phalanx?


Phalanx is short range hold your breath final line of defense like a 2 mile range. So that's maybe a four grid coverage. Since its tube artillery and Artillery fires in Batteries or Battery 8-12 tube a battery it'll be overwhelm and a bit ineffective since a plotted artillery fire deals with a location plus immediate surrounding area of the location. It won't be one round fired per tube. It'll be 5-6 rounds and move the Hell out to the next firing position.

I do believe SK, China, US of A hoping for a regime change of some sort. No ones wants to go in NK because of the terrain. I feel better if China has Peace Keepers there since everyone would agree with that even when we support the humanitarian effort to help the poor SOB's there.

Red Phoenix is a good read.

As for the nuke capable missile they haven't gone ICBM yet. They have a better chance nailing Okinawa and Japan. Pusan will more likely be hit. If they accomplish that then we're forced to stage out of Hawaii which then becomes a more worth while target. Since the UN becomes involve in the conflict I feel Australia will take some fire. By then China rolls in with Armor and Airborne units to get a freaking handle on the situation or their farmlands becomes contaminated north of NK and SE China thereby putting a severe hurt on their agriculture production alone. Doubt this though. I feel China would more likely roll in and set up a puppet government and keep a secure border between "US" and them


Yes. And key targets. This NK. Maybe hundred + aimed at them in reality.
What hundreds of shells per minute raining down. All our fancy tech won,t save you from that.

There's too many incoming projectiles to shoot down. Defense against them is pretty impossible.
Any battle they gonna win the early stages.

Allied airpower and such can turn tide buy not for a while. Maybe days.
There's alot of tanks n guns to blunt.

And China probbly intervene politics or military. At least lining the river border with China with many thousands of troops to control/defend it., refugee/deserters.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/10 00:14:49


Post by: Ouze


It sounds like the only guaranteed military option is a nuclear first strike.

Not such a hot option for anyone involved, or anyone not involved either.

I'm gonna fall back to that earlier plan of buying them out



What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/10 00:52:46


Post by: jhe90


 Ouze wrote:
It sounds like the only guaranteed military option is a nuclear first strike.

Not such a hot option for anyone involved, or anyone not involved either.

I'm gonna fall back to that earlier plan of buying them out



Too many NK and too many guns to disable in short time. They gonna get some through if they throw ernough at the DMZ.
There not high tech but numerous. We could win. Of course just be bloody, and very destructive.



What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/10 01:02:48


Post by: JimOnMars


NKs artillery is way overstated. It will damage Seoul, but not annihilate it.

Evacuate Seoul first. Very difficult, but not impossible, to do. We can pay for any rebuilding after.

Then throw the works at them. They will fold.

If China helps from the north, then they can help decide the future of a unified Korea. If not, we get to park our tanks and planes and drones on the Chinese border.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/10 01:19:19


Post by: Sanguinary Guardsman


 JimOnMars wrote:
NKs artillery is way overstated. It will damage Seoul, but not annihilate it.

Evacuate Seoul first. Very difficult, but not impossible, to do. We can pay for any rebuilding after.

Then throw the works at them. They will fold.

If China helps from the north, then they can help decide the future of a unified Korea. If not, we get to park our tanks and planes and drones on the Chinese border.


Surely doing nothing is preferable to an ungodly bloodbath isnt it?


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/10 01:36:30


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Ouze wrote:
It sounds like the only guaranteed military option is a nuclear first strike.

Not such a hot option for anyone involved, or anyone not involved either.



The current US plan is to hit NK nuclear facilities with stealth aircraft and then drop SpecOps to locate and destroy NK's AA capability. Once (if) those are neutralized, and NKs airbases destroyed (all 1500 of them) US airpower will pummel the North into submission while also somehow withstanding the inevitable ground assault where they'd only be outnumbered 4 to 1 in the BEST scenario. NK has about 2 million men in active service, but another 7 million in reserves. The US has 2 million in total, counting reserves, in all branches of the service. While South Korea can theoretically make up the difference in manpower, it would mostly be poorly armed and trained reservists. How many would be able to serve if NK starts with a massive chemical attack is also up to debate.


as far as NK's artillery capabilities just along the DMZ....




that's just every day explosives. Nothing sexy like NCB munitions. It's believed that they have enough chemical weapons to wipe out Seoul in the opening hours of the war. The biggest issue is which the NK artillery would focus on, US installations in range, or Seoul. If Kim focuses on Chemical weapons for Seoul, and more standard munitions elsewhere we're looking at a major change in the dynamic, and looking at possibly as high as 20k US casualties in the initial exchange.


I'll say something probably unpopular: the US does not have the capability nor political will to engage in a the sort of long, hyper-violent struggle that North Korea would be offering. You all might laugh about the quality of NK weapons systems, etc, but remember that any ground engagement between KN and US is most likely to be a situation where the US soldiers would be grossly outnumbered. Not Iraq outnumbered, Stalingrad outnumbered. And even after the US gets air superiority, you can expect a heavy rain of steel from their IMMENSE number of standard artillery pieces.





What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/10 01:43:10


Post by: Sanguinary Guardsman


Sort of suggests that the Trump admin is going to hem and haw about this issue but end up doing nothing except sabotage any diplomatic efforts by South Korea's new president.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/10 02:29:13


Post by: sebster


The problems with North Korea begin and end with North Korean weakness. Despite what their propaganda may claim, NK is well aware of their weakness, and in fact their belligerence is due to NK knowing how weak their position is. On any given day they work with the knowledge that if the rest of the world wanted NK to collapse they could make it happen within a week. And it wouldn't even require military action, economic blockade would collapse the country within days.

So they feel the only way they have any control over their own fate is to maintain some ability to counter punch. Hence the mass of artillery constantly positioned to hit Seoul. Hence the nuclear program and the push to develop a weapon that can hit the US.

The problem is this need by NK produces a more active defence by the US, with troops positioned in SK, and the deployment of anti-missile defences. Which is necessary given the NK threat, but also serves to make NK feel even more threatened.

There really, truly isn't a good answer for this. There is no action that can be taken to 'solve' NK that doesn't get millions of people killed. So what there is, instead, is containment. Which is a frustrating thing for people because it is a passive stance, and people like the idea of doing something.

But there is history to say that if you give awful nations time, they will sometimes fix themselves. The USSR dismantled itself - the new Russia isn't great, but it's a hell of an improvement over the old regime. South Africa reformed itself, and even dismantled its nuke program. Portugal, Spain and so on. It isn't perfect, but the alternative is cause millions of casualties now, in order to prevent the chance of millions of casualties later.


 whembly wrote:
I guess the big question, what is stopping NK and SK from signing a peace agreement with one another?

Is it simply nuke deterrance?


We would need some concept of what a stable Korean peninsula would look like before any kind of real peace treaty could be signed. The NK govt would have to reform massively before any peace treaty would be anything more than an empty symbol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
Don't think that'll work... lil' Kim is God-Emperor of North Korea.


Can't see him giving that up.


There's a reason Kim Jong-un has committed all those brutal, high profile assassinations - his position is under constant thread of being usurped, and so he maintains a constant paranoia, and a willingness to use absolute force at any moment. That's not a fun way to live.

Of course, if he truly believes it is his right to rule per the mandate of the heavens, then the horribleness of the role doesn't matter. But no-one knows if that's true. It certainly didn't appear true from what people reported of his time growing up in the west. That doesn't mean it isn't true, because the one constant thing to come out of interviews with people who knew him while he lived in the west is that no-one really knew the slightest thing about him.

So you know, the offer might work.

The current state is favorable for China... that is, having NK being a "thorn" to the West.


NK is way more problematic for China that it is for the US.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BigWaaagh wrote:
Offer a $1b bounty on fat boy's head...that's right, $1b and $10m to each NK General that surrenders himself and his unit upon his death. $100m for every Nuke. Buy the melon-fethers off the old fashioned way. This would be chump change compared to the cost of an outright hostility with NK.


The problem is if it doesn't topple the regime instantly, and it is unlikely to do so instantly, then you have a NK where the leadership now fears even more political threats from the generals. This would prompt even more dramatic acts of political violence from Kim. More instability is not the answer to this puzzle.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/10 03:01:07


Post by: Grey Templar


 JimOnMars wrote:
NKs artillery is way overstated. It will damage Seoul, but not annihilate it.

Evacuate Seoul first. Very difficult, but not impossible, to do. We can pay for any rebuilding after.


Evacuating Seoul would basically be telegraphing that "hey, we're gonna invade you guys once we get these civvies out". Which would probably be enough provocation to make NK hit first while they can cause some damage.

And even if NKs artillery is overstated, "annihilate" is still a quite appropriate term for what will happen to Seoul. Even their 50-60 year old artillery would cause massive damage to a densely populated urban area. A single artillery shell can easily collapse a skyscraper, and you'd have thousands of rounds getting fired into the city every minute.

North Korea would probably quickly run out of ammunition, and fuel for any vehicles in a drawn out combat, but for a short period of time they could definitely effectively raze Seoul to the ground just with artillery. It would probably be on par with any of the bombing done in WW2. Certainly the worst since then.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/10 03:14:57


Post by: JimOnMars


 Grey Templar wrote:
,,,thousands of rounds getting fired into the city every minute...


No, 1 round per sq. kilometer per hour.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/10 03:28:32


Post by: sebster


 BaronIveagh wrote:
You'd mostly lose the bet of about the artillery (it moves around a lot, and what is static is so heavily dug in that MOABs would be required to take out single emplacements) Seoul would die, as NK has stated, and as best anyone can tell is serious, that they would flood the city with nerve and blister agents. So goodbye Seoul. Picture Aleppo and make it every last neighborhood, as civilian gas victims outpace the hospitals ability t treat them.


NK is believed to have mined under the demilitarised zone, and possibly reached Seoul. The hope that US military might could stop mass slaughter is a false hope.

I think that you utterly fail to comprehend the animosity between the Koreas at this point, or how savage and cruel the last war was. I do not think NK would surrender at all, as South Korea is already infamous in the north for their No Prisoners policy toward the north.


A friend of mine is a teacher. He used to play a game with his class where he'd roll a D100 for each student, and the number rolled was the year of the 20th century that that student would have to research their family history. So if the roll was 13 that student would go and find out about what their relatives were doing in 1913. He took the die and the game with him when he got a job teaching in SK. Played it once, a bunch of kids rolled not just the war years, but also the years after that. So they all went off, did their homework, and came back with stories of abandoning older family members as they fled the north, slow starvation during and after the war etc. And it wasn't like war never came up when he played the game in Australia, my friend had played this game for years and gotten students with family members who were fighting and even died in war in the years rolled. But the stories in SK were something else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Vaktathi wrote:
Their military technology is base is largely 1940's/1950's era in many respects, what newer stuff they have isn't anything they have spectacular amounts of experience using in practice or real world conditions, and they simply don't have the leadership or logistics systems so support that equipment, much less an actual war effort.


A lot of it isn't just 1940/50s tech, it is literally the exact same trucks and rail stock that Russia gave them half a century ago. It's a genuine question as to how much of their military gear can even works any more, let alone able to survive the rigors of war.

North Korea can level the area around Seoul fairly quickly, but not much else. I highly doubt the morale of the NK military forces is quite as stalwart as some are making it out to be, particularly once bullets go flying.


I agree with you that is fairly close to certain that the NK military would fold fairly quickly. The problem is that they would level Seoul first, and while you point out they wouldn't achieve much else, that in itself would be enough to make this one of the great humanitarian disasters.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/10 03:53:15


Post by: BigWaaagh


 sebster wrote:
The problems with North Korea begin and end with North Korean weakness. Despite what their propaganda may claim, NK is well aware of their weakness, and in fact their belligerence is due to NK knowing how weak their position is. On any given day they work with the knowledge that if the rest of the world wanted NK to collapse they could make it happen within a week. And it wouldn't even require military action, economic blockade would collapse the country within days.

So they feel the only way they have any control over their own fate is to maintain some ability to counter punch. Hence the mass of artillery constantly positioned to hit Seoul. Hence the nuclear program and the push to develop a weapon that can hit the US.

The problem is this need by NK produces a more active defence by the US, with troops positioned in SK, and the deployment of anti-missile defences. Which is necessary given the NK threat, but also serves to make NK feel even more threatened.

There really, truly isn't a good answer for this. There is no action that can be taken to 'solve' NK that doesn't get millions of people killed. So what there is, instead, is containment. Which is a frustrating thing for people because it is a passive stance, and people like the idea of doing something.

But there is history to say that if you give awful nations time, they will sometimes fix themselves. The USSR dismantled itself - the new Russia isn't great, but it's a hell of an improvement over the old regime. South Africa reformed itself, and even dismantled its nuke program. Portugal, Spain and so on. It isn't perfect, but the alternative is cause millions of casualties now, in order to prevent the chance of millions of casualties later.


 whembly wrote:
I guess the big question, what is stopping NK and SK from signing a peace agreement with one another?

Is it simply nuke deterrance?


We would need some concept of what a stable Korean peninsula would look like before any kind of real peace treaty could be signed. The NK govt would have to reform massively before any peace treaty would be anything more than an empty symbol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
Don't think that'll work... lil' Kim is God-Emperor of North Korea.


Can't see him giving that up.


There's a reason Kim Jong-un has committed all those brutal, high profile assassinations - his position is under constant thread of being usurped, and so he maintains a constant paranoia, and a willingness to use absolute force at any moment. That's not a fun way to live.

Of course, if he truly believes it is his right to rule per the mandate of the heavens, then the horribleness of the role doesn't matter. But no-one knows if that's true. It certainly didn't appear true from what people reported of his time growing up in the west. That doesn't mean it isn't true, because the one constant thing to come out of interviews with people who knew him while he lived in the west is that no-one really knew the slightest thing about him.

So you know, the offer might work.

The current state is favorable for China... that is, having NK being a "thorn" to the West.


NK is way more problematic for China that it is for the US.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BigWaaagh wrote:
Offer a $1b bounty on fat boy's head...that's right, $1b and $10m to each NK General that surrenders himself and his unit upon his death. $100m for every Nuke. Buy the melon-fethers off the old fashioned way. This would be chump change compared to the cost of an outright hostility with NK.


Seb: The problem is if it doesn't topple the regime instantly, and it is unlikely to do so instantly, then you have a NK where the leadership now fears even more political threats from the generals. This would prompt even more dramatic acts of political violence from Kim. More instability is not the answer to this puzzle.



BW: I'm pretty sure the absolute, very first act by any internal group interested in the partaking in the "Kim's Gotta Go" Publisher's House giveaway would be instant, dramatic regime change, so guessing what might happen "if" that doesn't occur is irrelevant.

"more dramatic acts of political violence from Kim"...not if fat boy isn't around anymore.








What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/10 04:07:24


Post by: sebster


 BigWaaagh wrote:
I'm pretty sure the absolute, very first act by any internal group interested in the partaking in the "Kim's Gotta Go" Publisher's House giveaway would be instant, dramatic regime change, so guessing what might happen "if" that doesn't occur is irrelevant. "more dramatic acts of political violence from Kim"...not if fat boy is dead.


Sure, if the decision is made by a group of powerful insiders to knock off Kim, take the money and hand over the keys to the US, then their actual plan would happen very suddenly. The issue is the time delay between the US offering up the money, and a group of generals deciding to take the money, organise their likeminded buddies. In that time Kim is gonna know he's under even more threat, leading to acts of highly public political violence*, and greater instability. Which may actually undermine his position even more, if people think he's gonna kill them anyway that might tip them in to acting.

But of course that's an even more unstable regime. And the more unstable the regime, the more likely they are to go out in a flash of ultra-violence against SK, Japan and whoever else they can hurt.

You might wanna clean up the quotes in your thread. I think you can delete everything about "Seb", that just seems to be my post repeated.



*I'm not sure what's next in the line of escalation? After flamethrowers, mortars, and nerve gas in foreign airports, what do you do to keep people paying attention? Sharks with frikkin laser beams?


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/10 04:13:53


Post by: whembly


...I dunno... I read an article a while back (google-fu is failing me at the moment) that essentially surmises that both South Korea and Japan, through backchannel, warned China that if they don't rein in NK, then they'll start investing in Nukes as well.

That seems like something that China would want to avoid if all possible.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/10 05:09:04


Post by: Grey Templar


 JimOnMars wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
,,,thousands of rounds getting fired into the city every minute...


No, 1 round per sq. kilometer per hour.


I suppose you have a source for this? because that is just a pitifully low number it can't possibly be true. Unless you're including all of South Korea and not just Seoul.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/10 05:49:52


Post by: sebster


 Grey Templar wrote:
I suppose you have a source for this? because that is just a pitifully low number it can't possibly be true. Unless you're including all of South Korea and not just Seoul.


There's more than 2000 artillery pieces pointed at Seoul. The city is about 600km squ. So for that artillery to deliver one round per km squ per hour, each piece would have to have a firing rate slower than one round per three hours. So unless we're now speculating that NK artillery is a lower tech than the guns that brought down Constantinople, its fair to say that JimOnMars claim of 1 round per square km per hour might have been a touch low.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/10 07:04:32


Post by: Spetulhu


 Grey Templar wrote:
And even if NKs artillery is overstated, "annihilate" is still a quite appropriate term for what will happen to Seoul. Even their 50-60 year old artillery would cause massive damage to a densely populated urban area. A single artillery shell can easily collapse a skyscraper, and you'd have thousands of rounds getting fired into the city every minute.


Yup. Artillery was scary in WW1, and more scary in WW2, and people still use the same sort of guns to this day (though with upgraded ammo in many cases). NK has anything between 8500 and 12000 traditional artillery pieces.

Ofc, they don't actually have that many pieces that can reach Seoul. Maybe "only" 400 or 500 of the biggest 170mm ones, and they do have problems with low-grade ammo. But it's still hundreds of shells for every firing, and I can't quite believe they're so bad that they can only fire once per minute.

The best Finnish 155mm gun with a trained crew can fire 8 shells per minute. Or a 3-round burst in 15 seconds. And those could reach Seoul from the NK border with the right expensive high-tech ammo we have and the NK doesn't. Still, if the NK have all their biggest guns trained on Seoul that's a lot of shells in the air. And using modern artillery doctrine they can switch coordinates, do heavy barrages or spread out more with only a few simple orders passed out to every battery. They do have well-trained artillery crews, it's the ammo and equipment that fails them if they don't hit. After losing comms it will be less efficient, but they'll still be hard pressed to not hit that one big target they've been aiming at for 70 years.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/10 07:21:30


Post by: jhe90


Spetulhu wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
And even if NKs artillery is overstated, "annihilate" is still a quite appropriate term for what will happen to Seoul. Even their 50-60 year old artillery would cause massive damage to a densely populated urban area. A single artillery shell can easily collapse a skyscraper, and you'd have thousands of rounds getting fired into the city every minute.


Yup. Artillery was scary in WW1, and more scary in WW2, and people still use the same sort of guns to this day (though with upgraded ammo in many cases). NK has anything between 8500 and 12000 traditional artillery pieces.

Ofc, they don't actually have that many pieces that can reach Seoul. Maybe "only" 400 or 500 of the biggest 170mm ones, and they do have problems with low-grade ammo. But it's still hundreds of shells for every firing, and I can't quite believe they're so bad that they can only fire once per minute.

The best Finnish 155mm gun with a trained crew can fire 8 shells per minute. Or a 3-round burst in 15 seconds. And those could reach Seoul from the NK border with the right expensive high-tech ammo we have and the NK doesn't. Still, if the NK have all their biggest guns trained on Seoul that's a lot of shells in the air. And using modern artillery doctrine they can switch coordinates, do heavy barrages or spread out more with only a few simple orders passed out to every battery. They do have well-trained artillery crews, it's the ammo and equipment that fails them if they don't hit. After losing comms it will be less efficient, but they'll still be hard pressed to not hit that one big target they've been aiming at for 70 years.


Yeah the guns may not be the best, some may fall short, or go off course.
But I you fire ernough, easy for them then that's not matter if one gun explodes a minute, 10% of rounds dud. Because you still got a few thousand rounds incoming.
And yes, there more low tech but with propper maitence, that gear could work fine, and much of it is older, more reliable models.
These things do still work and even a ainciant now T34 85 will kill you dead as a Abrahams if it kills you.

Lastly. There air force may not be in as good shape and woefully outdated but still can drop old iron bombs, chemical or such weapons.
So air is also something to consider alongside there regular artillery


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/10 11:02:45


Post by: Frazzled


Relapse wrote:
In my my mind, I envision a group of world leaders dressed as Austrian nuns singing, "How do you solve a problem like Korea?"

Indeed. To quote Mel Brooks... " No conversions? Send in...THE NUNS!"

Policies that help motivate them to capitalize aka China and North VIetnam would probably be better.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/10 12:03:41


Post by: Herzlos


 Sanguinary Guardsman wrote:
NK's leadership wants to modernize their economy but that isn't really possible without access to international markets. The US wants NK to abandon its nuclear program. A diplomatic solution seems pretty self evident in this situation and the general picture of such a deal is pretty obvious. NK gives... cessation of nuclear weapons development/rockets. US gives NK a full peace treaty and normalized trade relations and a framework for integration with south korea in the future.

Obviously the details of such an agreement are complex but the general idea is not. Seems like it would be vastly cheaper than any military solution that has 0% chance for a positive outcome.


NK is run by a paranoid lunatic, and look what happened to Iraq when the US realised they didn't have nuclear weapons. You're not going to get NK to give up nukes for anything, as in their view it's one of the only things holding back an invasion (that and the eradication of Seoul).

NK is using pretty old tech, manned by an army of half starved conscripts. Defection rates will be huge, so the way to go might be to trigger an uprising / mass defection. That may be possible without causing them to open fire on SK. I'm assuming there must be ways to make their artilery malfunction without blowing them up - water will stuff the explosives, and there should be a way to interfere with their targetting and communication systems. Make the artillery think NK has fallen and they'll probably run before firing a single shot; it's a serious gamble though.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/10 13:36:42


Post by: Sanguinary Guardsman


Herzlos wrote:
 Sanguinary Guardsman wrote:
NK's leadership wants to modernize their economy but that isn't really possible without access to international markets. The US wants NK to abandon its nuclear program. A diplomatic solution seems pretty self evident in this situation and the general picture of such a deal is pretty obvious. NK gives... cessation of nuclear weapons development/rockets. US gives NK a full peace treaty and normalized trade relations and a framework for integration with south korea in the future.

Obviously the details of such an agreement are complex but the general idea is not. Seems like it would be vastly cheaper than any military solution that has 0% chance for a positive outcome.


NK is run by a paranoid lunatic, and look what happened to Iraq when the US realised they didn't have nuclear weapons. You're not going to get NK to give up nukes for anything, as in their view it's one of the only things holding back an invasion (that and the eradication of Seoul).

NK is using pretty old tech, manned by an army of half starved conscripts. Defection rates will be huge, so the way to go might be to trigger an uprising / mass defection. That may be possible without causing them to open fire on SK. I'm assuming there must be ways to make their artilery malfunction without blowing them up - water will stuff the explosives, and there should be a way to interfere with their targetting and communication systems. Make the artillery think NK has fallen and they'll probably run before firing a single shot; it's a serious gamble though.


Regarding giving up nukes... that actually happened in 1997-1999 with president Carter's mission to NK. The deal fell through since the Bush administration refused to honor the agreement. The deal was essentially a buyout. Regarding mental health... the last few missile tests by NK seem a bit too deliberate for a paranoid lunatic. Memorial day weekend, VE day, and the 4th of July? Seems pretty calculated to me.

Your point about Iraq is pretty good though. Maybe invading other countries without cause is a generally bad idea? Who knew??!


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/10 14:12:14


Post by: KTG17


The only way I see this being resolved is militarily. Kim, unlike his pops and grand-dad, doesn't seem to have any appreciation for China. He wasn't around when the Chinese bailed them out of the Korean War, and wasn't involved enough with politics before he took over the reigns. He also knocked off his Uncle so its pretty much him and the cult of personality around him.

And besides his Uncle, he's also knocked off his own brother. Real stand-up family man. If he doesn't care about his own family, he doesn't care about anyone else. And that's what upsets most people. He doesn't have a lot to lose but himself, so I don't doubt that if he could see the end coming, he would nuke whoever he could on his way out.

The only thing I can think that would work is for the South Korean and US troops advancing on the artillery positions within striking range of Seoul while the US takes Kim out with a surgical strike. Yes this means not just crossing the DMZ, but advancing fast enough before the North Koreans could get their act together. This all would have to happen really quickly, which I doubt could. But the hope would be that with the head of state out, it would cause confusion for the remaining guys in power on how to respond, giving the South and US time to work with whoever is left to work out some deal. The problem is, everyone would see the South Korean and US military buildup, and have an idea what was coming, and the North Koreans would mobilize troops too. But if you just killed Kim, I am not sure what the powers of be would do, so you have to physically move up to ensure the North Koreans can't retaliate with hitting Seoul, with artillery at least.

Speed is the issue. You would have to be quick enough to catch the Chinese pants down.

But the South really doesn't want anything to do with the North. They can't absorb all the North Koreans into the South's economy without major upheaval. And if the South Koreans aren't on board, well, nothing is going to get done.

What is crazy though, is that our problems with this now are nothing compared to where they will be in 15-20 years.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/10 15:53:14


Post by: Grey Templar


 jhe90 wrote:


Lastly. There air force may not be in as good shape and woefully outdated but still can drop old iron bombs, chemical or such weapons.



Indeed. Thats the other thing to consider. Many of those artillery rounds coming in won't be conventional explosives. They'll be gas and chemical rounds. Nerve gas in a city is going to kill a LOT of people who would have survived a normal artillery round.

Their air force would definitely be dangerous, but that's one area I wouldn't be as concerned about. Most of their planes would be going on a 1 way trip. They might drop some bombs, but they'd get shot down quickly. I would expect very few to actually survive the round trip to rearm.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/10 19:43:37


Post by: JimOnMars


 Grey Templar wrote:
 JimOnMars wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
,,,thousands of rounds getting fired into the city every minute...


No, 1 round per sq. kilometer per hour.


I suppose you have a source for this? because that is just a pitifully low number it can't possibly be true. Unless you're including all of South Korea and not just Seoul.


The post above with the map.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/10 21:13:03


Post by: djones520


 Ouze wrote:
How effective would a CIWS be against conventional artillery? I'm sure Iron Dome would be overwhelmed, but what about batteries of Phalanx?


From personal experience of having 75+ rounds of indirect fire thrown at me in my last deployment, the 8 systems we had on our base caught maybe 30% of them. There was never more then 2 in the air at the same time as well.

It helps, but it's not a perfect system at all.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/10 21:14:48


Post by: jhe90


 Grey Templar wrote:
 jhe90 wrote:


Lastly. There air force may not be in as good shape and woefully outdated but still can drop old iron bombs, chemical or such weapons.



Indeed. Thats the other thing to consider. Many of those artillery rounds coming in won't be conventional explosives. They'll be gas and chemical rounds. Nerve gas in a city is going to kill a LOT of people who would have survived a normal artillery round.

Their air force would definitely be dangerous, but that's one area I wouldn't be as concerned about. Most of their planes would be going on a 1 way trip. They might drop some bombs, but they'd get shot down quickly. I would expect very few to actually survive the round trip to rearm.


Past the first wave yes. Once the Us and SK AA starts opening up and deeper airbases scramble to deploy to the DMZ line they gonna not have a easy time with bombing very deep into SK..

And yes. I mean anyone out exposed in those first few minutes be dead.
Anyone on DMZ bases are unlikely to do well.

This is so fethed up but you basicaly sacraficong anyone inside x miles of border with some deeper dire from tactical missiles and light ICbM.
Np way to stop that many incoming missiles, shells and projectiles.

Sometimes qauntity is impossible to beat by quality, least early on.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/10 21:45:45


Post by: Grey Templar


 JimOnMars wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
 JimOnMars wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
,,,thousands of rounds getting fired into the city every minute...


No, 1 round per sq. kilometer per hour.


I suppose you have a source for this? because that is just a pitifully low number it can't possibly be true. Unless you're including all of South Korea and not just Seoul.


The post above with the map.


You didn't read it very well then. Seoul is not in the bright yellow. Its in the middle of that scale, not the tail end of the saturation.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/10 21:58:19


Post by: djones520


 Grey Templar wrote:
 JimOnMars wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
 JimOnMars wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
,,,thousands of rounds getting fired into the city every minute...


No, 1 round per sq. kilometer per hour.


I suppose you have a source for this? because that is just a pitifully low number it can't possibly be true. Unless you're including all of South Korea and not just Seoul.


The post above with the map.


You didn't read it very well then. Seoul is not in the bright yellow. Its in the middle of that scale, not the tail end of the saturation.


Yeah, the roughly 500,000 per square kilometer. That's a lot. And I'm willing to bet my 3 remaining GW armies, that NK would go for the hail mary of targetting every gun that they could on Seoul to ensure maximum saturation. They know they can't win. The biggest card they have in their favor is making it so deadly, that we won't force the issue.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/10 22:38:34


Post by: jhe90


They may not be able to win. But can make it so expensive to win it not worth fighting the war.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/11 01:38:26


Post by: sebster


 JimOnMars wrote:
The post above with the map.


Seoul is orange on that map, not yellow. So given the map's scale, the number of rounds falling on Seoul will be greater than 1 per squ km, and less than 981,804 per squ km

Admittedly it's unlikely to be a linear scale so it's prob a lot closer to 1 than 981,804, but it's a lot however you cut it. The figure I've seen repeated a lot is 2,000 pieces able to reach Seoul.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 djones520 wrote:
Yeah, the roughly 500,000 per square kilometer. That's a lot. And I'm willing to bet my 3 remaining GW armies, that NK would go for the hail mary of targetting every gun that they could on Seoul to ensure maximum saturation. They know they can't win. The biggest card they have in their favor is making it so deadly, that we won't force the issue.


Sort of. That is definitely the threat that NK is holding. But just like you don't build a nuke in order to use it, the NK's didn't built the capacity to wipe Seoul in order to do it. The point is to have the threat, in order to maintain a balance of power and extort concessions out of the US, Japan and SK.

If gak goes down the NK leadership might decide to murder millions of people as they go out. They also might collapse and quickly became a collection of pathetic turncoats each trying to do whatever they can to save their own skins. It's an unknown.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/11 02:25:10


Post by: Jihadin


Actually artillery strikes into Seoul will create one massive bottle neck for 2ID and every SK military unit north of it. You have two major road artery going up to Uijeongbu that is the southern most 2ID base there with a artillery battalion there and 1 lift battalion of Hawks, 1 BN of Apache's and 1 BN of Hooks. Camp Stanley has two ECP's and maybe a third going out the ville behind it avoiding Suicidal Hill. One major artery all the way up to Casey in Dongdechon. With numerous US units feeding onto that highway. All roads north to south of Seoul are rigged to blow tank stops at all terrain choke points so its literally a slugfest to Seoul down each valley. Best time to invade is Dec-Jan since the rice paddies are frozen hard enough to bear armor.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/11 04:09:41


Post by: JimOnMars


Here's a more accurate description of Seoul's artillery vulnerability.

https://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/4/25/1656090/-North-Korean-artillery-and-the-concept-of-flattening-Seoul-a-breakdown

NK only has 400-500 M-1989s (the only artillery they have that can reach Seoul.) They are not all directly opposite Seoul either...the ones that aren't cant hit it.

The US and SK know where many of them are and will be very high priorities. Any time NK uses one we'll find out where it is and neutralize it within minutes. Not cheaply, but without much real trouble.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/11 04:30:57


Post by: Jihadin


That's tube artillery. They also have rocket batteries like the ones used by the Soviets during WWII against the Germans plus somewhat "modern" versions of the system


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/11 11:12:47


Post by: Frazzled


 Jihadin wrote:
That's tube artillery. They also have rocket batteries like the ones used by the Soviets during WWII against the Germans plus somewhat "modern" versions of the system


And of course...nukes.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/11 12:16:04


Post by: jhe90


 Jihadin wrote:
Actually artillery strikes into Seoul will create one massive bottle neck for 2ID and every SK military unit north of it. You have two major road artery going up to Uijeongbu that is the southern most 2ID base there with a artillery battalion there and 1 lift battalion of Hawks, 1 BN of Apache's and 1 BN of Hooks. Camp Stanley has two ECP's and maybe a third going out the ville behind it avoiding Suicidal Hill. One major artery all the way up to Casey in Dongdechon. With numerous US units feeding onto that highway. All roads north to south of Seoul are rigged to blow tank stops at all terrain choke points so its literally a slugfest to Seoul down each valley. Best time to invade is Dec-Jan since the rice paddies are frozen hard enough to bear armor.


Aye. They had decades to plan the defence lines. Lay these large concrete round blockades and dropping highway sign baricades, lay mines, grid reference guns and build the bunkers and the like. Though NK also had the sar time to plan a attack.

They probbly prepared someway to try and bypass.. Granted US had some to counter.
It would be bloody and planned well.

Both sides had time and minds for decades to prepare.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/11 17:44:10


Post by: Kilkrazy


You only need to read a history of the Korean War to understand that Korea is difficult terrain to fight through on both sides of the border. Of course, air power is a lot more developed now than in the early 1950s.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/11 18:07:36


Post by: Sarouan


What to do with North Korea? Mostly stop answering to their provocations with more provocations. Which can mean keeping someone away from Twitter.

It's the escalation that brings to this end. I believe the North Korean president really thinks the USA are about to invade his lands and want to show his head on a pike or something. He's getting pretty much paranoid with all the events of the last months.

Having that kind of weapon was always a way to say "if you attack me, then you will pay dearly with your blood". That's why he's trying to show he can strike at such a range, and why they're going frantic on this end. At least, IMHO.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/11 18:51:05


Post by: Frazzled


People keep glossing over the THEY HAVE NUKES thing.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/11 19:20:17


Post by: JimOnMars


 Frazzled wrote:
People keep glossing over the THEY HAVE NUKES thing.

Not yet deliverable...probably. Next year. We need to go now or not at all.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/11 19:22:49


Post by: Frazzled


If the bomb functions they can put it in a BMP or just move through in one of those mineshafts they have burrowed through to the SK side.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/11 19:28:31


Post by: JimOnMars


 Frazzled wrote:
If the bomb functions they can put it in a BMP or just move through in one of those mineshafts they have burrowed through to the SK side.

It might not yet be a bomb. Getting a nuclear device to explode is different than building something that can be easily transported. Assuming it can fit down the tunnels, which may not exist. We will be watching the border very closely and blowing up anything that moves. Remember SK has artillery, too.

Agree though that we have at most a year. After that, they can nuke the western US all they want.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/11 19:31:49


Post by: Laughing Man


 JimOnMars wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
People keep glossing over the THEY HAVE NUKES thing.

Not yet deliverable...probably. Next year. We need to go now or not at all.

Not deliverable to the US. They've tested plenty of short range missiles that could conceivably carry a nuclear payload, and Japan and South Korea are both pretty definitely in range of those.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/11 19:39:28


Post by: Popsghostly


Send in the Primaris marines. Inceptor squads at the missile sites and Intecessor squads to mop up the military bases.

Nothing has worked so far. They have their nukes and the only thing to prevent them from obtaining the capability to deliver them to the lower 48 is to bomb the Hell out of them. That said, with dramatic losses in Seoul and across the Sea of Japan in Tokyo and other major Japanese cities inevitable with a raid, the only other course of action is to ignore them and ramp up the sanctions (with Chinese support).

Await a collapse down the road and then outbid terrorists for nuclear weapons seems to be the only option without major bloodshed.



What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/11 20:15:50


Post by: Frazzled


There are always more than two options. What happens if just ignore them?


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/11 20:28:41


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


 JimOnMars wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
People keep glossing over the THEY HAVE NUKES thing.

Not yet deliverable...probably.


Do you really want to throw the dice on this?


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/11 21:01:03


Post by: Ouze


 Frazzled wrote:
There are always more than two options. What happens if just ignore them?


Then we go from NK being able to hold Seoul hostage, to NK being able to hold Hawaii hostage.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/11 21:02:09


Post by: Grey Templar


 Kilkrazy wrote:
You only need to read a history of the Korean War to understand that Korea is difficult terrain to fight through on both sides of the border. Of course, air power is a lot more developed now than in the early 1950s.


And, fortunately, unlike the last war the technology gap has been massively expanded. The enemy planes we would be facing wouldn't be an even match anymore like it was back then. They might have some modern Russian or Chinese SAM equipment, but largely they'll be using 30-50 year old planes and AA equipment. So we most likely wouldn't lose many, if any, of our own planes.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/11 21:09:10


Post by: Frazzled


 Ouze wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
There are always more than two options. What happens if just ignore them?


Then we go from NK being able to hold Seoul hostage, to NK being able to hold Hawaii hostage.


Why? We have 8,000 nuclear warheads. The doctrine of Massive Retaliation applies here (capitalized strategy vs. MADD). The list of nuclear powers is not short at this point. Attack Hawaii (and well you likely won't get through the screens) and every square inch of North Korea is now radioactive and a half life hell scape...kind of like New Mexico.

Also THAAD achieved a hit in its recent tests this week.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/11 21:17:43


Post by: jhe90


 Frazzled wrote:
 Ouze wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
There are always more than two options. What happens if just ignore them?


Then we go from NK being able to hold Seoul hostage, to NK being able to hold Hawaii hostage.


Why? We have 8,000 nuclear warheads. The doctrine of Massive Retaliation applies here (capitalized strategy vs. MADD). The list of nuclear powers is not short at this point. Attack Hawaii (and well you likely won't get through the screens) and every square inch of North Korea is now radioactive and a half life hell scape...kind of like New Mexico.

Also THAAD achieved a hit in its recent tests this week.


Plus spamfire the MkIV patriots', and any other ICMB or other AA missile you got.
If you saturate it with defense missiles it should blast it off course into a big ass empty sea or outright destroyed.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/11 21:19:25


Post by: djones520


 Laughing Man wrote:
 JimOnMars wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
People keep glossing over the THEY HAVE NUKES thing.

Not yet deliverable...probably. Next year. We need to go now or not at all.

Not deliverable to the US. They've tested plenty of short range missiles that could conceivably carry a nuclear payload, and Japan and South Korea are both pretty definitely in range of those.


Weaponizing a nuclear weapon is a hell of an ordeal. Given that these guys can barely launch a missile successfully, most think tanks feel that it's very unlikely they've yet managed to weaponize their nuclear capability.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/11 21:24:41


Post by: Grey Templar


 jhe90 wrote:

If you saturate it with defense missiles it should blast it off course into a big ass empty sea or outright destroyed.


Assuming it doesn't do that by itself.

Even if a North Korean ICBM has the range to a particular target, it doesn't mean they'll actually hit it. Especially something as small as Hawaii. You're probably looking at >85% it just totally misses.

Give them another 10 years and that's probably not the case, but for right now it's not a huge problem.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/11 21:28:40


Post by: Frazzled


 djones520 wrote:
 Laughing Man wrote:
 JimOnMars wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
People keep glossing over the THEY HAVE NUKES thing.

Not yet deliverable...probably. Next year. We need to go now or not at all.

Not deliverable to the US. They've tested plenty of short range missiles that could conceivably carry a nuclear payload, and Japan and South Korea are both pretty definitely in range of those.


Weaponizing a nuclear weapon is a hell of an ordeal. Given that these guys can barely launch a missile successfully, most think tanks feel that it's very unlikely they've yet managed to weaponize their nuclear capability.


Again, they could drive it over in a truck and hit Seoul.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/11 21:30:21


Post by: jhe90


 Grey Templar wrote:
 jhe90 wrote:

If you saturate it with defense missiles it should blast it off course into a big ass empty sea or outright destroyed.


Assuming it doesn't do that by itself.

Even if a North Korean ICBM has the range to a particular target, it doesn't mean they'll actually hit it. Especially something as small as Hawaii. You're probably looking at >85% it just totally misses.

Give them another 10 years and that's probably not the case, but for right now it's not a huge problem.


Aye. There kind of muskets not sniper rifles.
But even a musket can hit one in every so many shots.

Still be a case of bring it down with whatever number of missiles are in the defense silos.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/11 23:05:13


Post by: BaronIveagh


 jhe90 wrote:

Aye. There kind of muskets not sniper rifles.
But even a musket can hit one in every so many shots.

Still be a case of bring it down with whatever number of missiles are in the defense silos.


It depends on whose shooting the musket. And the musket. But anyway.

I think a lot of you are grossly underestimating NK. In 2015 they took delivery of a VERY big pile of presents from Putin, including large but undisclosed number of fairly new Mig-29s. They have an unknown number of both Russian and locally manufactured versions of Spriggan, which can kill an Abrams. In addition to a few thousand MBTs bought overseas, they have a local MBT that we know little about, other than it combines a 125mm main gun with AT missiles and AA missiles on one turret. Most likely it combines armor features found in later model Chinese and Russian MBTs. We think.

The real issue is that the west knows very little about what it might be facing in NK, though if you think that their military technology is backward, you're probably wrong.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/11 23:33:27


Post by: Ouze


 BaronIveagh wrote:
The real issue is that the west knows very little about what it might be facing in NK, though if you think that their military technology is backward, you're probably wrong.


While I agree with the sentiment, lets not go too far in the other direction. During the last exchange of artillery fire North Korea engaged in, they fired 170 shells. Only 80 hit the island they were aiming at, and of those, 20 of those didn't detonate.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/11 23:37:08


Post by: Popsghostly


 Frazzled wrote:
There are always more than two options. What happens if just ignore them?


Good question Frazzled.

Absolutes are the way of the Dark Side. Ignore them, perhaps they ramp it up to try a provocation... until they get tired of provoking the powers around them. If we take the bait, then they can justify their militarization as self defense. Perhaps more clearly the two options are either bomb them or not bomb them rather than bomb or ignore...



What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/12 00:01:32


Post by: whembly


 Ouze wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
The real issue is that the west knows very little about what it might be facing in NK, though if you think that their military technology is backward, you're probably wrong.


While I agree with the sentiment, lets not go too far in the other direction. During the last exchange of artillery fire North Korea engaged in, they fired 170 shells. Only 80 hit the island they were aiming at, and of those, 20 of those didn't detonate.

60 still detonated...

Extrapolate that to the feth ton of artilleries... that's a lotta on-target hits.

:shudders:

I can't fathom a solution out of this...


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/12 00:11:51


Post by: djones520


 whembly wrote:
 Ouze wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
The real issue is that the west knows very little about what it might be facing in NK, though if you think that their military technology is backward, you're probably wrong.


While I agree with the sentiment, lets not go too far in the other direction. During the last exchange of artillery fire North Korea engaged in, they fired 170 shells. Only 80 hit the island they were aiming at, and of those, 20 of those didn't detonate.

60 still detonated...

Extrapolate that to the feth ton of artilleries... that's a lotta on-target hits.

:shudders:

I can't fathom a solution out of this...


It's because their isn't one. A pretty one at least.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/12 00:31:12


Post by: JimOnMars


 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
 JimOnMars wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
People keep glossing over the THEY HAVE NUKES thing.

Not yet deliverable...probably.


Do you really want to throw the dice on this?


Absolutely.

Why?

We throw the same dice no matter what we do, except that slow pressure, of any kind, gives NK more time to make the decision. If NK will not go down without nuking somebody, then they are nuked. Period. 100% chance of death.

NK is unstable and could nuke anybody anytime for any reason. The ONLY hope we have is to try to bomb them before they can launch. Otherwise Seoul is nuked, or Japan, or the US.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/12 01:04:36


Post by: whembly


Interesting read...

Spoiler:
Trump Has 6 Options to Neutralize North Korea—but None Are Good
The carrot and the stick approach clearly failed

By Austin Bay • 07/11/17 6:30am

We don’t hear mere saber rattling on the Korean peninsula. Sabers are local, short-range weapons. The dreadful noise in east Asia is something far more potent: the provocative July 4 blast of a North Korean missile capable of striking North America.


South Korea’s Sunshine Policy to coax North Korea to end its nuclear quest? The Clinton Administration’s Agreed Framework of economic carrots and heavy oil to encourage regime moderation? Two decades (or more) of rational U.S. appeals to China to help curb the noxious Kim regime’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles and to help terminate Pyongyang’s cyclic bouts of military attacks on South Korea?

These soft power gambits may have thrilled the editorial board of The New York Times, but they didn’t stop North Korea’s dictatorship. The Kim regime now has an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) in its arsenal—one that threatens Anchorage, Alaska, and perhaps Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.
Eight years ago, on July 4, 2009, North Korea conducted a missile test. July 4 launches are clearly messages to America.

Alaska and Hawaii are minimalist interpretations of the 2017 missile’s range. Other experts fear the ICBM, a Hwasong-14, can reach the Canadian and U.S. west coasts.

Parts of Alaska (western Aleutians) have been within range of North Korean missiles for several years. So has Guam. There is an ongoing debate about the Taepodong-2 ballistic missile that was test-fired in February 2016. It may have had the range to hit northern California.

The July 4 launch doesn’t mean the North Koreans can handle operational targeting; it doesn’t mean they can mount an operational nuclear warhead on a missile; it doesn’t mean they have a warhead that can re-enter the atmosphere without breaking apart; it doesn’t mean they can detonate a warhead that can reach its target. It does, however, show they are hell bent on acquiring these capabilities and their accelerated development program is succeeding.

For the moment, the heat from North Korea’s intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) test remains rhetorical and its fallout political. However, Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program will eventually produce nuclear warheads for its boosters.

For almost four decades, the Kim dynasty in Pyongyang has promised to build nuclear weapons and ICBMs. Now the dictatorship’s dream is a real world nightmare.

Since the 1990s, there have been three general options for halting North Korea’s nuclear weapons program: enforce stiff economic and political sanctions to isolate the regime; follow a “wait and see” political and military strategy played with cautious economic carrots and sticks; and conduct a pre-emptive air or missile strike on North Korean nuclear research and development sites, weapons stores, missile and air bases, and command and control facilities.

Here are the current options for the U.S. to neutralize the Hermit Kingdom’s threat. Each entails grave risks.

1.) Yet another “do the right thing” bid to Beijing. China has vulnerabilities. China’s imperial territorial expansion in the South China Sea has produced adversarial reactions. China’s other borders are anything but problem-free, and Beijing’s bullying has intensified several disputes.

Chinese jockeying failed to shake the new government of South Korean President Moon Jae-in and force the withdrawal of a U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-ballistic missile (ABM) battery deployed in South Korea.

China threatened South Korean companies. It curtailed travel and cultural contacts. It threatened Seoul with political reprisals.

The THAAD tantrum failed, and China is still processing that failure. Moon was pegged as a “peace candidate” of the timorous political stripe Beijing and Pyongyang might manipulate. He performed a brief “review” of the THAAD deployment (which he promised he would do during his campaign), but after his meeting with President Donald Trump, he declared “a unified front” against Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile programs.

South Korea knows THAAD provides protection. Japan also knows U.S. anti-ballistic missiles (ABM) provide protection.

Beijing has not yet adapted to South Korea’s and Japan’s new resolve. Moon is positioned to help Beijing adapt to 2017’s new reality and encourage China to finally squeeze the nukes out of the North.

Eighty-five percent of North Korea’s international trade is with China. North Korea’s miserable economy depends on China.

Some North Korean defectors argue tough sanctions—meaning an embargo and blockade with China participating—could cripple the Kim regime.

In April, Trump tweeted “a trade deal with the U.S. will be far better if they (China) solve the North Korean problem!” An economic payoff? Yes, but better than a shooting war.

2.) Coercive diplomacy directed at China. In March, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said “strategic patience” with North Korea was over and done.

Eventually strategic patience with Chinese posturing will also end.

China is attempting to portray itself as “the global adult” in the Trump Era and as the “go to nation” for the next Davos. However, backing North Korea utterly exposes this Chinese narrative as the sham it is. In February, Kim Jon Un’s assassins murdered his half-brother, Kim Jong Nam. The killers smeared him with a liquid nerve poison, persistent VX. In a missile warhead, VX is a weapon of mass destruction. Assassination as a geo-political advertisement that North Korea is an outlaw regime is an action no responsible nation would permit.

So coercive diplomacy starts with an information campaign challenging China’s pose.

It gets uglier. In the U.S.-China relationship, trade politics and geo-politics intersect. Business isn’t simply business when the promise of wealth keeps China’s Communist Party in power. The United States has the economic power to damage China. Trump knows it and so does Beijing. Trump has already talked trade barriers.

The U.S. is energy independent and China isn’t. The U.S. and its allies can restrict Chinese exports and access to raw materials.

Smaller but politically irritating sanctions like denying wealthy Chinese the ability to purchase real estate in the U.S. could have political effects among Chinese elites. In the upcoming party Congress scheduled for this fall, Chinese President Xi Jinping wants to solidify his control. However, he faces internal Communist Party opposition. The U.S. could exploit emerging factions in the party elite.

Coercive diplomacy stops when China forces North Korea to denuclearize.

Risky? Of course. It could spark a ruinous global trade war. But it is an option.

3.) The cynical trade and sell-out. The U.S., Japan and South Korea could acknowledge Chinese control of the South China Sea or they could give Taiwan to China in exchange for a denuclearized North Korea.

Outrageous? Yes. India would never accept it. Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Singapore and Australia would go tilt.

I don’t think the U.S. and Japan would ever seriously contemplate it.

But it’s an option and likely the “appeasement” deal Beijing wants to make.

4.) Return of serve. This is an operation that could support several diplomatic options. The U.S., South Korea and Japan could use their ABMs to intercept every North Korean test launch. They might also employ cyber warfare to disrupt tests (perhaps they have already done so). The objective of “Return of Serve” is to stymie the test program and embarrass Kim Jong Un.

5.) Decapitation. What does Pyongyang want? The murder of Kim Jong Nam suggests one key objective: to retain Kim Jong Un’s control. Encouraging a North Korean Army coup sounds great, and if you know the faction who would do it, contact CIA immediately. Targeting Kim with a missile or aircraft-delivered munitions is extremely difficult. Moreover, his death may not lead to denuclearization and attacking him would be an act of war.

6.) Delayed reprisal and the war to denuclearize. Is a pre-emptive strike reckless? This asks another question: Just how responsible is a post-emptive strike?

The Korean War isn’t over.

Donald Trump is already a Korean War president—but so was Barack Obama and every other American president since Harry Truman.

Over the years, North Korea has committed atrocities throughout Asia. The regime has murdered and kidnapped South Koreans, Japanese and U.S. personnel. North Korea’s embedded belligerency defies the laws of war. The War to Denuclearize would be less of a pre-emptive strike than a delayed reprisal.

The U.S. and South Korea have exercised what they call a 4D strategy to “detect, defend, disrupt and destroy” North Korea’s missiles.

Weapons systems involved include various U.S. aircraft and a South Korean submarine with cruise missiles.

This is a bare sketch of some of the systems that would be employed in a “simultaneous strategic bombing strike” to knock out North Korean missiles, missile launchers, storage sites, nuclear and chemical weapons sites, command and control centers, communications systems and air-space defenses.

The U.S. and its allies in east Asia have the aircraft and missiles (cruise and ballistic) to deliver at least 2,000 (likely more) precision blockbuster-sized conventional weapons within a two to 10 minute time frame on North Korea’s critical targets. The April U.S. Tomahawk cruise missile attack on a Syrian Shayrat airbase provides an example.

The missiles were fired at a distance, but since they can “loiter,” the 59 missiles arrived near simultaneously. U.S. Air Force heavy bombers can drop smart bombs so that munitions dropped from different aircraft arrive near simultaneously.

A simultaneous strategic bombing strike seeks to surprise the enemy, destroy his strategic weapons systems and suppress his key defenses throughout the battle area.

That is asking a lot—perhaps too much.

Success depends on many things, but the first D—detect—is vital. Conducting a successful simultaneous strategic bombing strike requires very accurate, real-time intelligence. Allied ABMs must be ready to intercept any North Korean missiles that survive the attack.

That’s a sketch of the first 10 minutes. Over the next month subsequent strikes would occur, to make certain North Korea’s long-range missiles, chemical munitions, nuclear weapons stockpiles, missile manufacturing capabilities and nuclear weapons manufacturing capabilities are eliminated.

The U.S. and it allies must protect Seoul. North Korean artillery can bombard the northern reaches of South Korea’s capital. Military analysts debate the severity of the threat posed to Seoul by North Korean artillery deployed along the Demilitarized Zone. Some call it overrated. Perhaps, but best to suppress and destroy the artillery. North Korea’s tube and rocket artillery systems—even the ones in caves and bunkers—are vulnerable to weapons like the Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) bomb.

Smart bombs can close tunnel entrances.

This is a major war, and the risks are great. But so is exposing Los Angeles to the violent whims of a nuclear-armed Kim Jong Un.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/12 01:34:42


Post by: JimOnMars


^^ Pretty much my thoughts. Doing nothing means nuked cities.

10 minutes for phase 1 of the war, 2 months for phase 2.

20 years to rebuild.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/12 02:19:48


Post by: Sanguinary Guardsman


 JimOnMars wrote:
^^ Pretty much my thoughts. Doing nothing means nuked cities.

10 minutes for phase 1 of the war, 2 months for phase 2.

20 years to rebuild.


All this based off of your assumption that Kim Jong-un is mentally unstable? Seems like the same kind of thinking that got the US into Iraq.


You know it might be cheaper and less bloody to purchase all of North Korea in its current state than carry out your plan.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/12 02:26:23


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 Frazzled wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
 Laughing Man wrote:
 JimOnMars wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
People keep glossing over the THEY HAVE NUKES thing.

Not yet deliverable...probably. Next year. We need to go now or not at all.

Not deliverable to the US. They've tested plenty of short range missiles that could conceivably carry a nuclear payload, and Japan and South Korea are both pretty definitely in range of those.


Weaponizing a nuclear weapon is a hell of an ordeal. Given that these guys can barely launch a missile successfully, most think tanks feel that it's very unlikely they've yet managed to weaponize their nuclear capability.


Again, they could drive it over in a truck and hit Seoul.

Which involves them defeating SK to the point of being able to bring the device in without it being destroyed. It's not as easy as all that. The North Korean army is big, but very outdated. And SKs has some of the most advanced militaty tech in the world, the K2 being of particular note. And they have a little more than 1000 K1's as well.

Plus, nukes are generally designed for airburst for a reason, the blast is much smaller otherwise.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/12 02:33:35


Post by: JimOnMars


 Sanguinary Guardsman wrote:
 JimOnMars wrote:
^^ Pretty much my thoughts. Doing nothing means nuked cities.

10 minutes for phase 1 of the war, 2 months for phase 2.

20 years to rebuild.


All this based off of your assumption that Kim Jong-un is mentally unstable? Seems like the same kind of thinking that got the US into Iraq.


You know it might be cheaper and less bloody to purchase all of North Korea in its current state than carry out your plan.


Yes, much cheaper, IF we could buy it. What happens if they say "no sale?"


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/12 02:45:59


Post by: sebster


 Frazzled wrote:
There are always more than two options. What happens if just ignore them?


You are rigth that there are a lot more than two options, but ignoring them isn't one of them. This is a country with an acute dependency on aid to prevent economic and social meltdown, and it is also a country with the capability to kill millions of citizens in neighbouring countries. And of course, it is a country that showed in their mid-90s famine that they are willing to let their own people die to maintain political control.

So there has to be some kind of deal, that somehow manages to limit NK's destructive capabilities, maintains stability, and also leaves enough wiggle room for some kind of future hope of peaceful transition to normalcy.

Exactly how to manage that is the big question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 JimOnMars wrote:
Absolutely.

Why?

We throw the same dice no matter what we do, except that slow pressure, of any kind, gives NK more time to make the decision. If NK will not go down without nuking somebody, then they are nuked. Period. 100% chance of death.

NK is unstable and could nuke anybody anytime for any reason. The ONLY hope we have is to try to bomb them before they can launch. Otherwise Seoul is nuked, or Japan, or the US.


Your assumption that NK will inevitably decide to press the button is totally wrong. I'm not saying that it can't happen, but your assumption that it will happen is totally false. Despotic regimes end non-violently all the time. The USSR ended itself. Portugal, Spain and the other despots of Europe in the 20th century ended up ceding power without attempting violent self-annihilation. South Africa not only ended its apartheid regime, it then began a program to dismantle its nukes.

In contrast, limited offensive campaigns have a long and ugly history of ending up as drawn out occupations.

Containment is not just a short term strategy, it is also the long term strategy with history on its side. It is by no means a perfect solution, and certainly isn't a call for a passive, directionless approach to NK, but it is the best option we have to minimise the threats from this problem.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/12 11:01:45


Post by: Frazzled


 djones520 wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Ouze wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
The real issue is that the west knows very little about what it might be facing in NK, though if you think that their military technology is backward, you're probably wrong.


While I agree with the sentiment, lets not go too far in the other direction. During the last exchange of artillery fire North Korea engaged in, they fired 170 shells. Only 80 hit the island they were aiming at, and of those, 20 of those didn't detonate.

60 still detonated...

Extrapolate that to the feth ton of artilleries... that's a lotta on-target hits.

:shudders:

I can't fathom a solution out of this...


It's because their isn't one. A pretty one at least.


There is. We thought the same of China, then they went capitalist. Same for Vietnam. Same for the pther military powers there. NK is ony different because NK chooses to be different.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/12 11:22:58


Post by: Herzlos


 Frazzled wrote:
Again, they could drive it over in a truck and hit Seoul.


They'd never get it through the DMZ. If they get desperate enough they could detonate it inside the DMZ or one of the tunnels (if they exist).


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/12 11:35:46


Post by: Frazzled


Herzlos wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Again, they could drive it over in a truck and hit Seoul.


They'd never get it through the DMZ. If they get desperate enough they could detonate it inside the DMZ or one of the tunnels (if they exist).


1. Drive it under the DMZ.
2. Take over the DMZ.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/12 11:45:05


Post by: jhe90


 Sanguinary Guardsman wrote:
 JimOnMars wrote:
^^ Pretty much my thoughts. Doing nothing means nuked cities.

10 minutes for phase 1 of the war, 2 months for phase 2.

20 years to rebuild.


All this based off of your assumption that Kim Jong-un is mentally unstable? Seems like the same kind of thinking that got the US into Iraq.


You know it might be cheaper and less bloody to purchase all of North Korea in its current state than carry out your plan.


The answer is sadly. He is not stable.
Not even close.

He has been raised a king since birth and groomed for the role for a few years min.
He rules as a absolute leader of North Korea.

He does not trust own family. He killed alot of them.
He killed his ex. Maybe info.

He killed his brother. Threat tp him? Replacement Kim.
This man is not a safe pair of hands.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/12 11:48:24


Post by: Frazzled


Sounds like your standard British king to me.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/12 15:41:11


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 Frazzled wrote:
Herzlos wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Again, they could drive it over in a truck and hit Seoul.


They'd never get it through the DMZ. If they get desperate enough they could detonate it inside the DMZ or one of the tunnels (if they exist).


1. Drive it under the DMZ.
2. Take over the DMZ.

1. You still have to get to Soel.
2: And that's not nearly as easy as it sounds, the SK army is nothing to laugh off.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/12 15:45:52


Post by: Frazzled


Wait, you think a country who's leader invented golf and once made 6 holes in one would have a problem driving on Seoul?

North Korea is Best Korea!


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/12 17:25:20


Post by: Dreadwinter


Didn't we have some agency that specialized in deposing dictators?

What happened to those guys?


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/12 17:52:54


Post by: feeder


 Dreadwinter wrote:
Didn't we have some agency that specialized in deposing dictators?

What happened to those guys?


Bond is busy taking an "Appropriate Boundaries in the Workplace" course mandated by MI6 HR.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/12 17:57:50


Post by: Cothonian


I've always wondered who's actually in charge of North Korea. Kim, or the generals and "lower level" politicians.

Kim doesn't seem like a particularly bright individual, and I find it hard to believe that he is actually running the place (although I am sure he thinks he does.) Not that North Korea is particularly well run (in fact it is terribly run) but still...

Regardless, some sort of coup combined with swift military action to declaw North Korea seems like the best option. Risky, but so is letting a bunch of psychopaths play with nukes.





What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/12 18:01:12


Post by: Dreadwinter


 feeder wrote:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
Didn't we have some agency that specialized in deposing dictators?

What happened to those guys?


Bond is busy taking an "Appropriate Boundaries in the Workplace" course mandated by MI6 HR.


Probably for the best. I would rather send in Snake Plisskin, personally.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/12 18:03:20


Post by: feeder


 Dreadwinter wrote:
 feeder wrote:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
Didn't we have some agency that specialized in deposing dictators?

What happened to those guys?


Bond is busy taking an "Appropriate Boundaries in the Workplace" course mandated by MI6 HR.


Probably for the best. I would rather send in Snake Plisskin, personally.


Escape From Pyongyang, a summer blockbuster coming soon to a theatre near you!


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/12 18:09:18


Post by: Desubot


 feeder wrote:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
 feeder wrote:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
Didn't we have some agency that specialized in deposing dictators?

What happened to those guys?


Bond is busy taking an "Appropriate Boundaries in the Workplace" course mandated by MI6 HR.


Probably for the best. I would rather send in Snake Plisskin, personally.


Escape From Pyongyang, a summer blockbuster coming soon to a theatre near you!


Id watch that instantly.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/12 19:04:56


Post by: Kilkrazy


China isn't as capitalist as you might think. Everything important is controlled by the communist government, and there are no signs they are thinking of giving up their iron fisting in a velvet glove.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/12 21:31:45


Post by: jhe90


False alarm.
If you see it. Seems nuke test was a false alarm.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4690704/Earthquake-detected-coast-North-Korea.html


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/12 22:05:57


Post by: WrentheFaceless


 Desubot wrote:
 feeder wrote:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
 feeder wrote:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
Didn't we have some agency that specialized in deposing dictators?

What happened to those guys?


Bond is busy taking an "Appropriate Boundaries in the Workplace" course mandated by MI6 HR.


Probably for the best. I would rather send in Snake Plisskin, personally.


Escape From Pyongyang, a summer blockbuster coming soon to a theatre near you!


Id watch that instantly.


Same


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/12 23:26:03


Post by: jhe90


 WrentheFaceless wrote:
 Desubot wrote:
 feeder wrote:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
 feeder wrote:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
Didn't we have some agency that specialized in deposing dictators?

What happened to those guys?


Bond is busy taking an "Appropriate Boundaries in the Workplace" course mandated by MI6 HR.


Probably for the best. I would rather send in Snake Plisskin, personally.


Escape From Pyongyang, a summer blockbuster coming soon to a theatre near you!


Id watch that instantly.


Same


Snakenil have to do. Chuck Norris is fighting off Mothra and Sly Marbo is off making Australia safe to live in drop beer hunting.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/14 00:55:25


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Dreadwinter wrote:
Didn't we have some agency that specialized in deposing dictators?

What happened to those guys?


They also did work in selecting new Dictators. That part of the job they were pretty bad at and it bit the US in the ass several times. Now they've had to leave their cocaine fields in Colombia to grow Heroin in Afghanistan. It's a full time job.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/14 16:58:47


Post by: Sanguinary Guardsman


 jhe90 wrote:
 Sanguinary Guardsman wrote:
 JimOnMars wrote:
^^ Pretty much my thoughts. Doing nothing means nuked cities.

10 minutes for phase 1 of the war, 2 months for phase 2.

20 years to rebuild.


All this based off of your assumption that Kim Jong-un is mentally unstable? Seems like the same kind of thinking that got the US into Iraq.


You know it might be cheaper and less bloody to purchase all of North Korea in its current state than carry out your plan.


The answer is sadly. He is not stable.
Not even close.

He has been raised a king since birth and groomed for the role for a few years min.
He rules as a absolute leader of North Korea.

He does not trust own family. He killed alot of them.
He killed his ex. Maybe info.

He killed his brother. Threat tp him? Replacement Kim.
This man is not a safe pair of hands.


None of these points suggest mental illness. What you are talking about is very likely to be quite rational from Kim's position however bloody.
If you do not understand what a foreign state is doing, assuming their leader/leadership to be insane is a really cheap explanation. We've seen this explanation used too often. Saddam was insane, Putin is insane, Kim Jong-un is insane, Gadaffi was insane etc etc.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/14 18:02:53


Post by: MDSW


I should totally do a bit more research, so take this simplistic approach with a grain of salt...

Simply put, I cannot really believe NK is an independent country in regards to resources and materials. Clearly, China is their supplier of these items and the hammer needs to come down from China. They have a spoiled brat of a child running rampant and it is time for Dad to crack their kid's behind, and good.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/14 18:06:46


Post by: djones520


 Sanguinary Guardsman wrote:
 jhe90 wrote:
 Sanguinary Guardsman wrote:
 JimOnMars wrote:
^^ Pretty much my thoughts. Doing nothing means nuked cities.

10 minutes for phase 1 of the war, 2 months for phase 2.

20 years to rebuild.


All this based off of your assumption that Kim Jong-un is mentally unstable? Seems like the same kind of thinking that got the US into Iraq.


You know it might be cheaper and less bloody to purchase all of North Korea in its current state than carry out your plan.


The answer is sadly. He is not stable.
Not even close.

He has been raised a king since birth and groomed for the role for a few years min.
He rules as a absolute leader of North Korea.

He does not trust own family. He killed alot of them.
He killed his ex. Maybe info.

He killed his brother. Threat tp him? Replacement Kim.
This man is not a safe pair of hands.


None of these points suggest mental illness. What you are talking about is very likely to be quite rational from Kim's position however bloody.
If you do not understand what a foreign state is doing, assuming their leader/leadership to be insane is a really cheap explanation. We've seen this explanation used too often. Saddam was insane, Putin is insane, Kim Jong-un is insane, Gadaffi was insane etc etc.


He had his uncle killed by mortar, then his entire family murdered as well.

How does that not scream mental instability?


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/14 18:07:56


Post by: Frazzled


 MDSW wrote:
I should totally do a bit more research, so take this simplistic approach with a grain of salt...

Simply put, I cannot really believe NK is an independent country in regards to resources and materials. Clearly, China is their supplier of these items and the hammer needs to come down from China. They have a spoiled brat of a child running rampant and it is time for Dad to crack their kid's behind, and good.


Oh contraire Daddy likes what they are doing.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/14 19:09:14


Post by: Kilkrazy


Without examining Kim Jong Bim in person it's impossible to say if he is clinically insane or reacting rationally to an insane situation.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/14 20:39:56


Post by: Sanguinary Guardsman


 djones520 wrote:
 Sanguinary Guardsman wrote:
 jhe90 wrote:
 Sanguinary Guardsman wrote:
 JimOnMars wrote:
^^ Pretty much my thoughts. Doing nothing means nuked cities.

10 minutes for phase 1 of the war, 2 months for phase 2.

20 years to rebuild.


All this based off of your assumption that Kim Jong-un is mentally unstable? Seems like the same kind of thinking that got the US into Iraq.


You know it might be cheaper and less bloody to purchase all of North Korea in its current state than carry out your plan.


The answer is sadly. He is not stable.
Not even close.

He has been raised a king since birth and groomed for the role for a few years min.
He rules as a absolute leader of North Korea.

He does not trust own family. He killed alot of them.
He killed his ex. Maybe info.

He killed his brother. Threat tp him? Replacement Kim.
This man is not a safe pair of hands.


None of these points suggest mental illness. What you are talking about is very likely to be quite rational from Kim's position however bloody.
If you do not understand what a foreign state is doing, assuming their leader/leadership to be insane is a really cheap explanation. We've seen this explanation used too often. Saddam was insane, Putin is insane, Kim Jong-un is insane, Gadaffi was insane etc etc.


He had his uncle killed by mortar, then his entire family murdered as well.

How does that not scream mental instability?


It might in a vacuum but there are all kinds of other things that the regime does that suggests agency and planning. Also would the murder of a political rival(or possible dissident) be a sign of mental instability? North Korea does not have a very good system of political succession or civil/human rights so how else are political rivalries and disputes going to be settled? It doesnt take too much effort to see some of the possible dynamics involved in Kim's uncle +family getting purged.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jang_Song-thaek#Downfall

Article offers a basic range of views on why Kim's uncle was executed.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Without examining Kim Jong Bim in person it's impossible to say if he is clinically insane or reacting rationally to an insane situation.


Sounds about right. Within a totalitarian state what appears to be insane to us is probably quite rational.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/14 21:18:24


Post by: BaronIveagh




They fired 0 shells because BM-21 Grads use rockets. It's basically a modernized katyusha. Good news, a weapon designed for saturation is inaccurate. In other news, water is wet.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/14 22:32:32


Post by: Mario


MDSW wrote:They have a spoiled brat of a child running rampant and it is time for Dad to crack their kid's behind, and good.
It's more like having a homeless person living nearby who was once interesting/funny/useful/whatever but now they are causing minor inconveniences for all neighbours and everybody is just trying to placate them while trying to find a long term solution that works and is affordable. Sure you could do something drastic but who knows what the reaction would be.

The difference is with one homeless person you can just deal with them but here you have millions of people who would end up dying or at best in an even worse situation than they are now (nobody wants to support millions of people they don't know what to do with).

Take for example former East Germany, nearly three decades later and the recovery still isn't finished and those states tend to have a higher unemployment rate than the rest of Germany. A similar NK solution would need to work with a bigger population, even worse conditions, and a more complicated set of "leaders".

That's why everybody more or less just looks away and tries to keep some sort of balance that doesn't disrupt the status quo too much. The whole situation is potentially very volatile while any solutions look rather expensive and like a lot of long term work for everyone involved.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/14 22:40:04


Post by: Desubot


Mario wrote:
MDSW wrote:They have a spoiled brat of a child running rampant and it is time for Dad to crack their kid's behind, and good.
It's more like having a homeless person living nearby who was once interesting/funny/useful/whatever but now they are causing minor inconveniences for all neighbours and everybody is just trying to placate them while trying to find a long term solution that works and is affordable. Sure you could do something drastic but who knows what the reaction would be.


Its only a matter of time till he loses his mind or accidentally sets the hedge on fire while smoking.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/14 23:59:03


Post by: Dreadwinter


 Sanguinary Guardsman wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
 Sanguinary Guardsman wrote:
 jhe90 wrote:
 Sanguinary Guardsman wrote:
 JimOnMars wrote:
^^ Pretty much my thoughts. Doing nothing means nuked cities.

10 minutes for phase 1 of the war, 2 months for phase 2.

20 years to rebuild.


All this based off of your assumption that Kim Jong-un is mentally unstable? Seems like the same kind of thinking that got the US into Iraq.


You know it might be cheaper and less bloody to purchase all of North Korea in its current state than carry out your plan.


The answer is sadly. He is not stable.
Not even close.

He has been raised a king since birth and groomed for the role for a few years min.
He rules as a absolute leader of North Korea.

He does not trust own family. He killed alot of them.
He killed his ex. Maybe info.

He killed his brother. Threat tp him? Replacement Kim.
This man is not a safe pair of hands.


None of these points suggest mental illness. What you are talking about is very likely to be quite rational from Kim's position however bloody.
If you do not understand what a foreign state is doing, assuming their leader/leadership to be insane is a really cheap explanation. We've seen this explanation used too often. Saddam was insane, Putin is insane, Kim Jong-un is insane, Gadaffi was insane etc etc.


He had his uncle killed by mortar, then his entire family murdered as well.

How does that not scream mental instability?


It might in a vacuum but there are all kinds of other things that the regime does that suggests agency and planning. Also would the murder of a political rival(or possible dissident) be a sign of mental instability? North Korea does not have a very good system of political succession or civil/human rights so how else are political rivalries and disputes going to be settled? It doesnt take too much effort to see some of the possible dynamics involved in Kim's uncle +family getting purged.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jang_Song-thaek#Downfall

Article offers a basic range of views on why Kim's uncle was executed.


Yes, the murder of a political rival would be a sign of mental instability. That is paranoia run rampant. It is not a good sign. How he was executed is even more of a red flag. He hit the man with a mortar. That is some cruel and unusual punishment. Some would say it is a little sadistic.(A lot, a lot of people would say that)

Do perfectly healthy people execute people with mortar fire?


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/15 00:25:34


Post by: jhe90


 Dreadwinter wrote:
 Sanguinary Guardsman wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
 Sanguinary Guardsman wrote:
 jhe90 wrote:
 Sanguinary Guardsman wrote:
 JimOnMars wrote:
^^ Pretty much my thoughts. Doing nothing means nuked cities.

10 minutes for phase 1 of the war, 2 months for phase 2.

20 years to rebuild.


All this based off of your assumption that Kim Jong-un is mentally unstable? Seems like the same kind of thinking that got the US into Iraq.


You know it might be cheaper and less bloody to purchase all of North Korea in its current state than carry out your plan.


The answer is sadly. He is not stable.
Not even close.

He has been raised a king since birth and groomed for the role for a few years min.
He rules as a absolute leader of North Korea.

He does not trust own family. He killed alot of them.
He killed his ex. Maybe info.

He killed his brother. Threat tp him? Replacement Kim.
This man is not a safe pair of hands.


None of these points suggest mental illness. What you are talking about is very likely to be quite rational from Kim's position however bloody.
If you do not understand what a foreign state is doing, assuming their leader/leadership to be insane is a really cheap explanation. We've seen this explanation used too often. Saddam was insane, Putin is insane, Kim Jong-un is insane, Gadaffi was insane etc etc.


He had his uncle killed by mortar, then his entire family murdered as well.

How does that not scream mental instability?


It might in a vacuum but there are all kinds of other things that the regime does that suggests agency and planning. Also would the murder of a political rival(or possible dissident) be a sign of mental instability? North Korea does not have a very good system of political succession or civil/human rights so how else are political rivalries and disputes going to be settled? It doesnt take too much effort to see some of the possible dynamics involved in Kim's uncle +family getting purged.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jang_Song-thaek#Downfall

Article offers a basic range of views on why Kim's uncle was executed.


Yes, the murder of a political rival would be a sign of mental instability. That is paranoia run rampant. It is not a good sign. How he was executed is even more of a red flag. He hit the man with a mortar. That is some cruel and unusual punishment. Some would say it is a little sadistic.(A lot, a lot of people would say that)

Do perfectly healthy people execute people with mortar fire?


Fueled by the fact your killing someone like him, so extremely, and wiping out own famiy show he has tp rely on some people but also that things are not as stable below surface politically as they seem.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/15 00:46:21


Post by: Ouze


 BaronIveagh wrote:


They fired 0 shells because BM-21 Grads use rockets. It's basically a modernized katyusha. Good news, a weapon designed for saturation is inaccurate. In other news, water is wet.


I'll be happy to concede that the fact a lot missed isn't a big deal if you admit that the fact 25% of their ordnance did hit but didn't explode is notable. You glossed over that point, and it seems salient since your whole argument was that the NK stuff is much better than we think it is.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/15 04:59:08


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Ouze wrote:

I'll be happy to concede that the fact a lot missed isn't a big deal if you admit that the fact 25% of their ordnance did hit but didn't explode is notable. You glossed over that point, and it seems salient since your whole argument was that the NK stuff is much better than we think it is.


Because it's not notable. It's about 2% worse than the USAF's requirements for their saturation weapons, such as cluster muntions. The Chinese version of the rockets have a bad habit of not detonating when they hit deep mud or water, as well. They don't stop fast enough to go off, so you get unexploded rockets that are quite live laying around. But they have better range than the Russian version.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/15 09:28:04


Post by: jhe90


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Ouze wrote:

I'll be happy to concede that the fact a lot missed isn't a big deal if you admit that the fact 25% of their ordnance did hit but didn't explode is notable. You glossed over that point, and it seems salient since your whole argument was that the NK stuff is much better than we think it is.


Because it's not notable. It's about 2% worse than the USAF's requirements for their saturation weapons, such as cluster muntions. The Chinese version of the rockets have a bad habit of not detonating when they hit deep mud or water, as well. They don't stop fast enough to go off, so you get unexploded rockets that are quite live laying around. But they have better range than the Russian version.


They just make up and add 20% more launchers.
They ain't short guns, rockets or troops.

Yeah there quality is lower. But it does not matter when even if you get 50% on target and exploding. Its still gonna do alot of damage of you start firing 200+ of the things.
1917 logic vs our 2017.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/15 10:01:57


Post by: Witzkatz


 jhe90 wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Ouze wrote:

I'll be happy to concede that the fact a lot missed isn't a big deal if you admit that the fact 25% of their ordnance did hit but didn't explode is notable. You glossed over that point, and it seems salient since your whole argument was that the NK stuff is much better than we think it is.


Because it's not notable. It's about 2% worse than the USAF's requirements for their saturation weapons, such as cluster muntions. The Chinese version of the rockets have a bad habit of not detonating when they hit deep mud or water, as well. They don't stop fast enough to go off, so you get unexploded rockets that are quite live laying around. But they have better range than the Russian version.


They just make up and add 20% more launchers.
They ain't short guns, rockets or troops.

Yeah there quality is lower. But it does not matter when even if you get 50% on target and exploding. Its still gonna do alot of damage of you start firing 200+ of the things.
1917 logic vs our 2017.


That's an interesting point always, in my opinion. We have invented weapons with such long range, such high levels of precision and cloaking or evading mechanisms...but on the very basis of combat, a human being is the same human being and will be killed by the same amount of bullets or shrapnel as a hundred years ago, with body armour only having a limited effect.

If your (North Korea's) goal is to be able to kill the maximum amount of civilians plus maybe infantry and light vehicles, then investing in easy-to-make, cheap, somewhat-robust TONS of artillery and guns is a feasible plan, it seems.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/15 10:17:51


Post by: jhe90


 Witzkatz wrote:
 jhe90 wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Ouze wrote:

I'll be happy to concede that the fact a lot missed isn't a big deal if you admit that the fact 25% of their ordnance did hit but didn't explode is notable. You glossed over that point, and it seems salient since your whole argument was that the NK stuff is much better than we think it is.


Because it's not notable. It's about 2% worse than the USAF's requirements for their saturation weapons, such as cluster muntions. The Chinese version of the rockets have a bad habit of not detonating when they hit deep mud or water, as well. They don't stop fast enough to go off, so you get unexploded rockets that are quite live laying around. But they have better range than the Russian version.


They just make up and add 20% more launchers.
They ain't short guns, rockets or troops.

Yeah there quality is lower. But it does not matter when even if you get 50% on target and exploding. Its still gonna do alot of damage of you start firing 200+ of the things.
1917 logic vs our 2017.


That's an interesting point always, in my opinion. We have invented weapons with such long range, such high levels of precision and cloaking or evading mechanisms...but on the very basis of combat, a human being is the same human being and will be killed by the same amount of bullets or shrapnel as a hundred years ago, with body armour only having a limited effect.

If your (North Korea's) goal is to be able to kill the maximum amount of civilians plus maybe infantry and light vehicles, then investing in easy-to-make, cheap, somewhat-robust TONS of artillery and guns is a feasible plan, it seems.


Exactly, they only need alot of heavy guns, and a mass of heavy unguided missiles.
Perfect for firing on city and fixed targets.

They ain't good for firing on a mobile formation but there perfectly capable of firing on SK capital, and also fixed DMZ and other military targets.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/15 10:34:16


Post by: Co'tor Shas


But the thing is, they have no hope of doing anything beyond killing thousands and then all getting killed by far superior forces (SK, USA, any other allies that want to get in on the asskicking, I'm sure Japan is itching for an excuse to use it's totally-not-an-army again). So realistically, why would they? I know there's always the "they're insane!" argument, but I don't buy that. First, the likelihood that Kim actually controls everything and it's not just controlled by the various generals is slim to none. And second, no insane person would have their country last this long.

Nevertheless, our goals should not include preparing to strike at the DPRK. Strengthen and fortify the Republic of Korea yes and make sure they have some of the strongest missile defense systems in the world, but we should favor defense over everything. I find the likelihood of NK attacking SK extremely remote. We've been saying they are "just about to attack" for fifty fething years. The "threat" of NK attacking has been swung around for my entire life. I don't think anything s about to change any time soon.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/15 12:27:12


Post by: Gitzbitah


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
But the thing is, they have no hope of doing anything beyond killing thousands and then all getting killed by far superior forces (SK, USA, any other allies that want to get in on the asskicking, I'm sure Japan is itching for an excuse to use it's totally-not-an-army again). So realistically, why would they? I know there's always the "they're insane!" argument, but I don't buy that. First, the likelihood that Kim actually controls everything and it's not just controlled by the various generals is slim to none. And second, no insane person would have their country last this long.

Nevertheless, our goals should not include preparing to strike at the DPRK. Strengthen and fortify the Republic of Korea yes and make sure they have some of the strongest missile defense systems in the world, but we should favor defense over everything. I find the likelihood of NK attacking SK extremely remote. We've been saying they are "just about to attack" for fifty fething years. The "threat" of NK attacking has been swung around for my entire life. I don't think anything s about to change any time soon.


To be fair, Iraq prepared for a traditional fight, with a traditional military. Traditional militaries from smaller, less developed nations can't defeat larger, more advanced nations in conventional warfare. Knowing that, they've looked at what stops larger, more advanced nations, and built their military to do that. In this case, that is horrendous civilian casualties. And it's worked- Iraq was invaded twice, and their dictator executed. North Korea is still here. I don't think adding the nuclear weapons is anything but an extension of their current policy. Deterrence by threat to civilian populations.As you say, Co'tor, they haven't invaded South Korea, or any other country during that time. There may be a few small military incidents every few years, but I find it hard to imagine a catalyst that would inspire North Korea to try to invade the South.



What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/15 12:48:44


Post by: SlaveToDorkness


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
But the thing is, they have no hope of doing anything beyond killing thousands and then all getting killed by far superior forces (SK, USA, any other allies that want to get in on the asskicking, I'm sure Japan is itching for an excuse to use it's totally-not-an-army again). So realistically, why would they? I know there's always the "they're insane!" argument, but I don't buy that. First, the likelihood that Kim actually controls everything and it's not just controlled by the various generals is slim to none. And second, no insane person would have their country last this long.


I watched a documentary about NK that was filmed by a crew traveling with an optometrist who did over 100 cataract surgeries while in NK (their nutrition is so poor that it's common for them to have major cataract issues in their 30s). These people where basically blind and had their sight restored by an American using machines they had over their that were American made. After their bandages were taken off every single one of them ran to the picture of KJI and bowed down thanking him for his wonderful technology and kindness to them for healing them.

They're all insane or too scared to not do the insane things asked of them for it to make a difference.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/15 13:17:23


Post by: BaronIveagh


 jhe90 wrote:

They ain't good for firing on a mobile formation but there perfectly capable of firing on SK capital, and also fixed DMZ and other military targets.


Mobile formations are not very mobile under a saturation bombardment from 10-20 times their numbers. I'm not joking when i say that a GRAD is mostly the cost of the rockets and can be operated by the two guys in the cab. Might take a while to reload, but that's what the other fifty trucks are for.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
But the thing is, they have no hope of doing anything beyond killing thousands and then all getting killed by far superior forces


That's debatable. Technologically superior, yes, however, numerically superior? No. Think like WW2 Russia. Because that's the math they're doing right now in Pyongyang. And they're right. They can absorb casualty rates so high they could beat the US military to death with clubs and sharp stones. And they have way better than those. Given the US aversion to casualties, we're looking at a US withdrawal within weeks due to political pressure at home, even if they can hold their ground on the field. Which I'm none too sure about. I had friend who's since passed away who was part of the US X Corps in Korea. He told me that in winter, you knew an attack was coming because one or more hills would suddenly turn brown from their numbers. The US had tanks and guns and marines and close air support and naval fire support and they were being BURIED under vast waves of men who simply charged their positions with rifles and sometimes hand grenades. Mines and heavy machine-gun nests and razor-wire didn't even slow them down.

They came to die, and did so willingly. Picture ISIS with numbers and gear like China. That's your war with North Korea.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/15 13:47:06


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
But the thing is, they have no hope of doing anything beyond killing thousands and then all getting killed by far superior forces (SK, USA, any other allies that want to get in on the asskicking, I'm sure Japan is itching for an excuse to use it's totally-not-an-army again). So realistically, why would they? I know there's always the "they're insane!" argument, but I don't buy that. First, the likelihood that Kim actually controls everything and it's not just controlled by the various generals is slim to none. And second, no insane person would have their country last this long.


I watched a documentary about NK that was filmed by a crew traveling with an optometrist who did over 100 cataract surgeries while in NK (their nutrition is so poor that it's common for them to have major cataract issues in their 30s). These people where basically blind and had their sight restored by an American using machines they had over their that were American made. After their bandages were taken off every single one of them ran to the picture of KJI and bowed down thanking him for his wonderful technology and kindness to them for healing them.

They're all insane or too scared to not do the insane things asked of them for it to make a difference.


Alternatively, there's more pressure to profess loyalty when an outsider is watching.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/15 14:05:57


Post by: Xenomancers


 JimOnMars wrote:
What if NK elects their version of Donald Trump? All it takes is one wacko in charge to turn Seoul to glass.

We are going to have to spend a trillion dollars bombing the gak out of them.

Might as well be now.

NK version of trump? Wouldn't you say they are already far past that? They have a legitimate psychopath leading their country - starving and enslaving their people en mass. Don't you know though - weapons all have expiration dates - you have to use them eventually anyways.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/15 17:46:32


Post by: Grey Templar


 djones520 wrote:
 Sanguinary Guardsman wrote:
 jhe90 wrote:
 Sanguinary Guardsman wrote:
 JimOnMars wrote:
^^ Pretty much my thoughts. Doing nothing means nuked cities.

10 minutes for phase 1 of the war, 2 months for phase 2.

20 years to rebuild.


All this based off of your assumption that Kim Jong-un is mentally unstable? Seems like the same kind of thinking that got the US into Iraq.


You know it might be cheaper and less bloody to purchase all of North Korea in its current state than carry out your plan.


The answer is sadly. He is not stable.
Not even close.

He has been raised a king since birth and groomed for the role for a few years min.
He rules as a absolute leader of North Korea.

He does not trust own family. He killed alot of them.
He killed his ex. Maybe info.

He killed his brother. Threat tp him? Replacement Kim.
This man is not a safe pair of hands.


None of these points suggest mental illness. What you are talking about is very likely to be quite rational from Kim's position however bloody.
If you do not understand what a foreign state is doing, assuming their leader/leadership to be insane is a really cheap explanation. We've seen this explanation used too often. Saddam was insane, Putin is insane, Kim Jong-un is insane, Gadaffi was insane etc etc.


He had his uncle killed by mortar, then his entire family murdered as well.

How does that not scream mental instability?


He's probably a sociopath. But I don't think he's ''crazy''. Not ''put a straight jacket on and toss him in the loony bin'' crazy. Power hungry and with an ego the size of the moon yes.

So unpredictable, and capable of spiteful actions. But he's not a gibbering loon.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/15 19:12:06


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 jhe90 wrote:

They ain't good for firing on a mobile formation but there perfectly capable of firing on SK capital, and also fixed DMZ and other military targets.


Mobile formations are not very mobile under a saturation bombardment from 10-20 times their numbers. I'm not joking when i say that a GRAD is mostly the cost of the rockets and can be operated by the two guys in the cab. Might take a while to reload, but that's what the other fifty trucks are for.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
But the thing is, they have no hope of doing anything beyond killing thousands and then all getting killed by far superior forces


That's debatable. Technologically superior, yes, however, numerically superior? No. Think like WW2 Russia. Because that's the math they're doing right now in Pyongyang. And they're right. They can absorb casualty rates so high they could beat the US military to death with clubs and sharp stones. And they have way better than those. Given the US aversion to casualties, we're looking at a US withdrawal within weeks due to political pressure at home, even if they can hold their ground on the field. Which I'm none too sure about. I had friend who's since passed away who was part of the US X Corps in Korea. He told me that in winter, you knew an attack was coming because one or more hills would suddenly turn brown from their numbers. The US had tanks and guns and marines and close air support and naval fire support and they were being BURIED under vast waves of men who simply charged their positions with rifles and sometimes hand grenades. Mines and heavy machine-gun nests and razor-wire didn't even slow them down.

They came to die, and did so willingly. Picture ISIS with numbers and gear like China. That's your war with North Korea.

I mean, historically the Soviet Union was not the "two guns to a person" meme that is so often told. They had some of the most advanced equipment of the war (it was only really sights where the US and Nazi Germany had a definite edge). They had supply issues, (and issues caused by the purge of experienced leadership, something most evident during the winter war), but were not just orks. They were masters of force concentration and deep battle tactics.

And active personnel only (not untrained conscripts) NK has about 1.2M. They would have around 6M if they drafted *the entire country*, but that says nothing about equipping and training them. Their entire budget (25% of their economy) is $10b, compared to RoK's 39T, which is a mere 2.5% of their economy. Even SK has 600K active personnel, with far more advanced equipment and training. And the US is not going to just abandon SK and more than it abandoned France and the UK after the casualties on Normandy. We would put out full force into protecting SK, including a massive amount of new troops.

And that still leaves China. NK isn't just going to randomly declare war, something like that requires massive buildup. And China would be most aware of that. If China decides to take them on, they are supremely fethed. The PLR has over 2m active (and I should add, well trained and eqipped) troops, 0.18% of their population That's a third of NK if they get their entire population drafted.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/15 20:23:47


Post by: TheCustomLime


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 jhe90 wrote:

They ain't good for firing on a mobile formation but there perfectly capable of firing on SK capital, and also fixed DMZ and other military targets.


Mobile formations are not very mobile under a saturation bombardment from 10-20 times their numbers. I'm not joking when i say that a GRAD is mostly the cost of the rockets and can be operated by the two guys in the cab. Might take a while to reload, but that's what the other fifty trucks are for.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
But the thing is, they have no hope of doing anything beyond killing thousands and then all getting killed by far superior forces


That's debatable. Technologically superior, yes, however, numerically superior? No. Think like WW2 Russia. Because that's the math they're doing right now in Pyongyang. And they're right. They can absorb casualty rates so high they could beat the US military to death with clubs and sharp stones. And they have way better than those. Given the US aversion to casualties, we're looking at a US withdrawal within weeks due to political pressure at home, even if they can hold their ground on the field. Which I'm none too sure about. I had friend who's since passed away who was part of the US X Corps in Korea. He told me that in winter, you knew an attack was coming because one or more hills would suddenly turn brown from their numbers. The US had tanks and guns and marines and close air support and naval fire support and they were being BURIED under vast waves of men who simply charged their positions with rifles and sometimes hand grenades. Mines and heavy machine-gun nests and razor-wire didn't even slow them down.

They came to die, and did so willingly. Picture ISIS with numbers and gear like China. That's your war with North Korea.


The North Koreans were crushed in the war until the Chinese intervened. I suspect a total war today would go down the same especially if the US got assistance from other countries namely China. Whatever the North Koreans can produce the US can make a lot more of and better.

And this is all assuming the North Korean army won't fold under significant pressure and that numerically superiority means anything in an age of advanced close air support and precision artillery. I think you are overestimating the abilities of the North Korean army to do anything but blow up South Korea by a wide margin.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/15 20:37:08


Post by: jhe90


 TheCustomLime wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
 jhe90 wrote:

They ain't good for firing on a mobile formation but there perfectly capable of firing on SK capital, and also fixed DMZ and other military targets.


Mobile formations are not very mobile under a saturation bombardment from 10-20 times their numbers. I'm not joking when i say that a GRAD is mostly the cost of the rockets and can be operated by the two guys in the cab. Might take a while to reload, but that's what the other fifty trucks are for.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
But the thing is, they have no hope of doing anything beyond killing thousands and then all getting killed by far superior forces


That's debatable. Technologically superior, yes, however, numerically superior? No. Think like WW2 Russia. Because that's the math they're doing right now in Pyongyang. And they're right. They can absorb casualty rates so high they could beat the US military to death with clubs and sharp stones. And they have way better than those. Given the US aversion to casualties, we're looking at a US withdrawal within weeks due to political pressure at home, even if they can hold their ground on the field. Which I'm none too sure about. I had friend who's since passed away who was part of the US X Corps in Korea. He told me that in winter, you knew an attack was coming because one or more hills would suddenly turn brown from their numbers. The US had tanks and guns and marines and close air support and naval fire support and they were being BURIED under vast waves of men who simply charged their positions with rifles and sometimes hand grenades. Mines and heavy machine-gun nests and razor-wire didn't even slow them down.

They came to die, and did so willingly. Picture ISIS with numbers and gear like China. That's your war with North Korea.


The North Koreans were crushed in the war until the Chinese intervened. I suspect a total war today would go down the same especially if the US got assistance from other countries namely China. Whatever the North Koreans can produce the US can make a lot more of and better.

And this is all assuming the North Korean army won't fold under significant pressure and that numerically superiority means anything in an age of advanced close air support and precision artillery. I think you are overestimating the abilities of the North Korean army to do anything but blow up South Korea by a wide margin.


Maybe once the reserves kick in and second defensive lines come into play.

The first line at the DMZ will quickly be bombarded to hell by NK guns and rockets. Early stages however it plays is going to badly for any position in NK arty ranges.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/15 21:22:07


Post by: TheCustomLime


Oh, it will be a very bloody and difficult war. Plus, no matter what goes down, millions of Koreans are going to suffer and die. But it is winnable since the KPA is technologically backwards and led by a manbaby dictator. The only thing they have going for them is the threat they pose to Seoul and the fact that they have been building their defenses for the better part of 70 years.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/15 21:35:36


Post by: jhe90


 TheCustomLime wrote:
Oh, it will be a very bloody and difficult war. Plus, no matter what goes down, millions of Koreans are going to suffer and die. But it is winnable since the KPA is technologically backwards and led by a manbaby dictator. The only thing they have going for them is the threat they pose to Seoul and the fact that they have been building their defenses for the better part of 70 years.


Can be won. Most of the DMZ garrison is likely Killed.
The bases in arty range all hit hard in first phases of war as NPA surge forward on mass.

Seoul is hit hard by the opening garage.
The second phase SK defense lines hold further back.

US air power hits hard and blunts the enemy , the hammers the NK lines, and infrastructure.

Counter attcak has drive past hard battle, casulties heavy on all sides. Min 20k US dead.

NK, we now have millions of barely educated, propoganda full people who hate us to look after, bring to modern world.
Older genptations may never, they will take decades to become modern.

We gotta rebuild a country with 70 years raised to hate everything western...
Probbly a fair rural insurgency as die harda die hard.

It be grim.



What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/16 00:28:34


Post by: Mario


 Desubot wrote:
Spoiler:
Mario wrote:
MDSW wrote:They have a spoiled brat of a child running rampant and it is time for Dad to crack their kid's behind, and good.
It's more like having a homeless person living nearby who was once interesting/funny/useful/whatever but now they are causing minor inconveniences for all neighbours and everybody is just trying to placate them while trying to find a long term solution that works and is affordable. Sure you could do something drastic but who knows what the reaction would be.


Its only a matter of time till he loses his mind or accidentally sets the hedge on fire while smoking.
It's a question of "what's it worth?", "how best to contain it?", "what is doable?", and so on. And the metaphor is easier to handle because it's one person and not a whole country with all the complexities that involves. My guess is that negotiations of some sort are happening but that the best or acceptable solution looks way different for both sides.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/17 02:50:15


Post by: sebster


 jhe90 wrote:
The answer is sadly. He is not stable.
Not even close.


The truth is we know little of his personal stability. We know almost nothing of him at all. Most of what we have is guesswork, and little of the guesswork comes from people in the intelligence and diplomatic communities.

A stable person who wants to maintain power, and even one who just wants to maintain stability, can be put in a situation where he kills a lot of people. Most tyrants who assume power from another tyrant have to clean house and kill a bunch of rivals and potential threats while a new hierarchy of power.

This is awful of course, and in a perfect world many people in the regime would be tried and found guilty of all sorts of crimes. But it isn't evidence of instability. Truth is we have no idea how stable the NK leadership is, although we do know that what we've seen so far is mostly consistent with how most stable, self-serving bastards would operate in that situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
China isn't as capitalist as you might think. Everything important is controlled by the communist government, and there are no signs they are thinking of giving up their iron fisting in a velvet glove.


It depends how capitalist people think things are. Government owns many assets, and even more is privately owned but only because of their connections to government (generals, high ranking party members etc). But these assets are primarily run for profit, with decisions largely decentralised. For instance it is now rare that a company will be run for employment rather than profit, though it does still happen (a major reason the iron ore price tanked was China continuing to ramp up production despite the cost of production being more than double the global price, because producers were instructed to maximise employment or face political consequences).

There is still a lot of state ownership and state direction in the economy, but it is nothing like the state controlled economy it once was. Does that make it capitalist? No. Does that make it not capitalist. Not really. It's just a hybrid, like most economies, just a much dirtier hybrid than others.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mario wrote:
It's more like having a homeless person living nearby who was once interesting/funny/useful/whatever but now they are causing minor inconveniences for all neighbours and everybody is just trying to placate them while trying to find a long term solution that works and is affordable. Sure you could do something drastic but who knows what the reaction would be.


An example to me are the Branch Davidians in Waco. It was more than bit scary that these guys were building a large aresenal while preaching some very crazy stuff, but by engaging them all that was achieved was making certain they flipped the switch in to apocalyptic death cult. Leaving them alone isn't a perfect solution because you still get groups like the Mansons, but they're more rare.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
Yes, the murder of a political rival would be a sign of mental instability. That is paranoia run rampant.


There's an old line, 'it isn't paranoia if they really are out to get you'. It's mostly a joke, but when it comes to the rulers of despotic regimes it couldn't be more true. Do you think that other people in NK's leadership just meekly submit to the rule of the Kim's? Even if they don't personally crave more power, they'd be mad to provoke powerful conspirators, out of fear for what might happen if their conspiracy succeeds.

This is paradox of absolute power. If a state grants absolute power to one person, including the power to kill anyone who threatens him, that is actually less stable because so many people will desire that power if only to be secure from the threat of being turned on and killed.

I think people need to stop looking NK in terms of personal judgments, as if what is happening there is the product of bad people deciding to do bad things. It is driven by the structure the country is in.

How he was executed is even more of a red flag. He hit the man with a mortar. That is some cruel and unusual punishment. Some would say it is a little sadistic.(A lot, a lot of people would say that)

Do perfectly healthy people execute people with mortar fire?


If you want to make a show of your power by murdering rivals, it makes sense to do it with as gruesome a murder as you can imagine. History is full of horrific executions of political rivals. You know what really pissed me off about Braveheart, even more than the Battle of Stirling Bridge having no bridge? Or Robert the Bruce being shown as weakwilled prat? It was Wallace's death, which was gruesome but also really stupid, as it gave Wallace every chance to keep looking brave and noble. In reality the guy was horrifically mutilated in the most humiliating and painful ways, it was more than enough to draw pleas of mercy from him. That is how brutal but sane men keep power in brutal political worlds.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/18 03:36:41


Post by: BaronIveagh


 TheCustomLime wrote:

The North Koreans were crushed in the war until the Chinese intervened. I suspect a total war today would go down the same especially if the US got assistance from other countries namely China. Whatever the North Koreans can produce the US can make a lot more of and better.

And this is all assuming the North Korean army won't fold under significant pressure and that numerically superiority means anything in an age of advanced close air support and precision artillery. I think you are overestimating the abilities of the North Korean army to do anything but blow up South Korea by a wide margin.



China invades North Korea to aid the US? While we're fantasizing, I'd like a hot blonde and a bottle of Jack.

One, the US would have to disengage and redeploy it's forces from current deployments to NK. This could take weeks in and of itself.

Two, we're assuming that there is no effective decapitation strike against the SK military. Remember that Seoul and bases closer to NK are likely write offs in the initial exchange. This would likely cause issues with effective defense in the short term.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 sebster wrote:

If you want to make a show of your power by murdering rivals, it makes sense to do it with as gruesome a murder as you can imagine. History is full of horrific executions of political rivals. You know what really pissed me off about Braveheart, even more than the Battle of Stirling Bridge having no bridge? Or Robert the Bruce being shown as weakwilled prat? It was Wallace's death, which was gruesome but also really stupid, as it gave Wallace every chance to keep looking brave and noble. In reality the guy was horrifically mutilated in the most humiliating and painful ways, it was more than enough to draw pleas of mercy from him. That is how brutal but sane men keep power in brutal political worlds.


Mind you, the only source we have for any of this is the Chinese press. So,grain of salt, people. They did admit that him feeding his uncle to wild dogs was an exaggeration.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/18 11:06:31


Post by: Frazzled




Yes, the murder of a political rival would be a sign of mental instability. That is paranoia run rampant. It is not a good sign. How he was executed is even more of a red flag. He hit the man with a mortar. That is some cruel and unusual punishment. Some would say it is a little sadistic.(A lot, a lot of people would say that)

Do perfectly healthy people execute people with mortar fire?


By this standard most nobility in history were insane. While the American Revolutionary in me would agree, logically its not.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/18 20:57:18


Post by: TheCustomLime


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 TheCustomLime wrote:

The North Koreans were crushed in the war until the Chinese intervened. I suspect a total war today would go down the same especially if the US got assistance from other countries namely China. Whatever the North Koreans can produce the US can make a lot more of and better.

And this is all assuming the North Korean army won't fold under significant pressure and that numerically superiority means anything in an age of advanced close air support and precision artillery. I think you are overestimating the abilities of the North Korean army to do anything but blow up South Korea by a wide margin.



China invades North Korea to aid the US? While we're fantasizing, I'd like a hot blonde and a bottle of Jack.

One, the US would have to disengage and redeploy it's forces from current deployments to NK. This could take weeks in and of itself.

Two, we're assuming that there is no effective decapitation strike against the SK military. Remember that Seoul and bases closer to NK are likely write offs in the initial exchange. This would likely cause issues with effective defense in the short term.



Invading North Korea without China's support, no matter how minor, is foolish and could actually kickstart a Nuclear exchange. China values North Korea as a buffer state and seeing that buffer state be violated would greatly upset them. The reason why the Chinese got involved in the Korean War in the first place is because they didn't want their borders to be violated by US forces.

For South Korea? I highly doubt the South Koreans are stupid enough to leave their entire military command in a position where they can be wiped out by pre-positioned artillery. Or at least I'd hope so.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/18 21:00:15


Post by: Desubot


 TheCustomLime wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
 TheCustomLime wrote:

The North Koreans were crushed in the war until the Chinese intervened. I suspect a total war today would go down the same especially if the US got assistance from other countries namely China. Whatever the North Koreans can produce the US can make a lot more of and better.

And this is all assuming the North Korean army won't fold under significant pressure and that numerically superiority means anything in an age of advanced close air support and precision artillery. I think you are overestimating the abilities of the North Korean army to do anything but blow up South Korea by a wide margin.



China invades North Korea to aid the US? While we're fantasizing, I'd like a hot blonde and a bottle of Jack.

One, the US would have to disengage and redeploy it's forces from current deployments to NK. This could take weeks in and of itself.

Two, we're assuming that there is no effective decapitation strike against the SK military. Remember that Seoul and bases closer to NK are likely write offs in the initial exchange. This would likely cause issues with effective defense in the short term.



Invading North Korea without China's support, no matter how minor, is foolish and could actually kickstart a Nuclear exchange. China values North Korea as a buffer state and seeing that buffer state be violated would greatly upset them. The reason why the Chinese got involved in the Korean War in the first place is because they didn't want their borders to be violated by US forces.

For South Korea? I highly doubt the South Koreans are stupid enough to leave their entire military command in a position where they can be wiped out by pre-positioned artillery. Or at least I'd hope so.


Its literally the entire point of NK being a buffer state..


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/18 21:01:16


Post by: jhe90


 TheCustomLime wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
 TheCustomLime wrote:

The North Koreans were crushed in the war until the Chinese intervened. I suspect a total war today would go down the same especially if the US got assistance from other countries namely China. Whatever the North Koreans can produce the US can make a lot more of and better.

And this is all assuming the North Korean army won't fold under significant pressure and that numerically superiority means anything in an age of advanced close air support and precision artillery. I think you are overestimating the abilities of the North Korean army to do anything but blow up South Korea by a wide margin.



China invades North Korea to aid the US? While we're fantasizing, I'd like a hot blonde and a bottle of Jack.

One, the US would have to disengage and redeploy it's forces from current deployments to NK. This could take weeks in and of itself.

Two, we're assuming that there is no effective decapitation strike against the SK military. Remember that Seoul and bases closer to NK are likely write offs in the initial exchange. This would likely cause issues with effective defense in the short term.



Invading North Korea without China's support, no matter how minor, is foolish and could actually kickstart a Nuclear exchange. China values North Korea as a buffer state and seeing that buffer state be violated would greatly upset them. The reason why the Chinese got involved in the Korean War in the first place is because they didn't want their borders to be violated by US forces.

For South Korea? I highly doubt the South Koreans are stupid enough to leave their entire military command in a position where they can be wiped out by pre-positioned artillery. Or at least I'd hope so.


No but there forward defense lines will take a real beating.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/18 21:49:38


Post by: Mario


TheCustomLime wrote:
Spoiler:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
 TheCustomLime wrote:

The North Koreans were crushed in the war until the Chinese intervened. I suspect a total war today would go down the same especially if the US got assistance from other countries namely China. Whatever the North Koreans can produce the US can make a lot more of and better.

And this is all assuming the North Korean army won't fold under significant pressure and that numerically superiority means anything in an age of advanced close air support and precision artillery. I think you are overestimating the abilities of the North Korean army to do anything but blow up South Korea by a wide margin.



China invades North Korea to aid the US? While we're fantasizing, I'd like a hot blonde and a bottle of Jack.

One, the US would have to disengage and redeploy it's forces from current deployments to NK. This could take weeks in and of itself.

Two, we're assuming that there is no effective decapitation strike against the SK military. Remember that Seoul and bases closer to NK are likely write offs in the initial exchange. This would likely cause issues with effective defense in the short term.



Invading North Korea without China's support, no matter how minor, is foolish and could actually kickstart a Nuclear exchange. China values North Korea as a buffer state and seeing that buffer state be violated would greatly upset them. The reason why the Chinese got involved in the Korean War in the first place is because they didn't want their borders to be violated by US forces.

For South Korea? I highly doubt the South Koreans are stupid enough to leave their entire military command in a position where they can be wiped out by pre-positioned artillery. Or at least I'd hope so.
Is the bolded part still true today? I'm no expert but from what I have read about the situation China is rather pissed at NK's antics and posturing. These days China is rather similar to the rest of us in that it benefits from stability for its economic growth and NK whining and trying to intimidate others doesn't help them.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/18 21:56:38


Post by: TheCustomLime


Mario wrote:
TheCustomLime wrote:
Spoiler:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
 TheCustomLime wrote:

The North Koreans were crushed in the war until the Chinese intervened. I suspect a total war today would go down the same especially if the US got assistance from other countries namely China. Whatever the North Koreans can produce the US can make a lot more of and better.

And this is all assuming the North Korean army won't fold under significant pressure and that numerically superiority means anything in an age of advanced close air support and precision artillery. I think you are overestimating the abilities of the North Korean army to do anything but blow up South Korea by a wide margin.



China invades North Korea to aid the US? While we're fantasizing, I'd like a hot blonde and a bottle of Jack.

One, the US would have to disengage and redeploy it's forces from current deployments to NK. This could take weeks in and of itself.

Two, we're assuming that there is no effective decapitation strike against the SK military. Remember that Seoul and bases closer to NK are likely write offs in the initial exchange. This would likely cause issues with effective defense in the short term.



Invading North Korea without China's support, no matter how minor, is foolish and could actually kickstart a Nuclear exchange. China values North Korea as a buffer state and seeing that buffer state be violated would greatly upset them. The reason why the Chinese got involved in the Korean War in the first place is because they didn't want their borders to be violated by US forces.

For South Korea? I highly doubt the South Koreans are stupid enough to leave their entire military command in a position where they can be wiped out by pre-positioned artillery. Or at least I'd hope so.
Is the bolded part still true today? I'm no expert but from what I have read about the situation China is rather pissed at NK's antics and posturing. These days China is rather similar to the rest of us in that it benefits from stability for its economic growth and NK whining and trying to intimidate others doesn't help them.


From my understanding of the situation it's not so much that China likes North Korea but hates countries aligned with unfriendly nations. Namely Japan and the US. So, China probably can't stand fat boy's little cult of personality and his renegade country they probably would hate the idea of a unified Korea that's friendly to "The West" even more.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/19 06:37:06


Post by: Grey Templar


 Desubot wrote:

Its literally the entire point of NK being a buffer state..


Yes, but as has been mentioned the situation is a little different now than it was 60 years ago.

China can't really afford to protect it's buffer state in the event of armed conflict because that would destroy their economy as the US, and others, consumption are the primary drivers of China's export focused economy. They might not like losing a political ally, but total economic ruin, and the likely political revolution that follows, would be way worse.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/19 07:31:14


Post by: jhe90


 Grey Templar wrote:
 Desubot wrote:

Its literally the entire point of NK being a buffer state..


Yes, but as has been mentioned the situation is a little different now than it was 60 years ago.

China can't really afford to protect it's buffer state in the event of armed conflict because that would destroy their economy as the US, and others, consumption are the primary drivers of China's export focused economy. They might not like losing a political ally, but total economic ruin, and the likely political revolution that follows, would be way worse.


Plus depends hpe conflict comes arise. If he is a grade A mpron and fires a missile at US or Japan and they retaliate, then he probbly fair game tp whatever happened tp him


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/19 08:06:29


Post by: ulgurstasta


 TheCustomLime wrote:


From my understanding of the situation it's not so much that China likes North Korea but hates countries aligned with unfriendly nations. Namely Japan and the US. So, China probably can't stand fat boy's little cult of personality and his renegade country they probably would hate the idea of a unified Korea that's friendly to "The West" even more.


Yeah, and a united Korea loyal to the US would mean even more military bases and missile stations within striking distance of the Chinese coastline, which they wouldn't be happy about


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/19 08:51:07


Post by: sebster


 ulgurstasta wrote:
Yeah, and a united Korea loyal to the US would mean even more military bases and missile stations within striking distance of the Chinese coastline, which they wouldn't be happy about


Except a unified Korea could easily come with a reduction of US forces, even their removal. The US troops are there because of NK. Sure the US would like more presence hemming in China in, but solving the NK problem would be preferred, and it isn't like the US lack for bases in other countries in region.

There are other issues at play. First is that any conflict in the peninsula would send millions of refugees in to China, in to a region the country that is already hugely problematic for the leadership. Everyone notice the US freakout when they were voluntarily taking thousands of refugees? Imagine millions of refugees being forced on you.

The second issue is that NK may be a pain in the ass for China, but it's China's pain in the ass. A bit like India failed multiple times to resolve the situation in Sri Lanka, but still got really pissy when the Chinese came in and handled the solution. Of course India didn't do anything beyond getting pissy, but that was resolving a long running civil war. This would be US intervention in a dangerous but static situation - not sure how the Chinese would react.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/19 09:25:55


Post by: ulgurstasta


 sebster wrote:
 ulgurstasta wrote:
Yeah, and a united Korea loyal to the US would mean even more military bases and missile stations within striking distance of the Chinese coastline, which they wouldn't be happy about


Except a unified Korea could easily come with a reduction of US forces, even their removal. The US troops are there because of NK. Sure the US would like more presence hemming in China in, but solving the NK problem would be preferred, and it isn't like the US lack for bases in other countries in region.


I think it would be naive to believe that the US would downscale their military in the region after a NK surrender. Considering the tension between the US and China currently, SK and Japan aren't getting armed to solely scare the NK if you catch my drift


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/19 15:56:21


Post by: whembly


 ulgurstasta wrote:
 sebster wrote:
 ulgurstasta wrote:
Yeah, and a united Korea loyal to the US would mean even more military bases and missile stations within striking distance of the Chinese coastline, which they wouldn't be happy about


Except a unified Korea could easily come with a reduction of US forces, even their removal. The US troops are there because of NK. Sure the US would like more presence hemming in China in, but solving the NK problem would be preferred, and it isn't like the US lack for bases in other countries in region.


I think it would be naive to believe that the US would downscale their military in the region after a NK surrender. Considering the tension between the US and China currently, SK and Japan aren't getting armed to solely scare the NK if you catch my drift

A unified Korean would definitely reduce the US footprint.

We'll still be there, for sure... but not like it is now.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/20 04:02:05


Post by: sebster


 ulgurstasta wrote:
I think it would be naive to believe that the US would downscale their military in the region after a NK surrender. Considering the tension between the US and China currently, SK and Japan aren't getting armed to solely scare the NK if you catch my drift


What's naive is building a hypothetical around Korean unification in which the US just happily ignored Chinese sensitivities. "feth you we're keeping troops in Korea" is beyond stupid. The process will involve extensive negotiations, and a major part of those negotiations will involve conceding to China things about which it is particularly sensitive, like a threatening number of US troops on the Korean peninsula, because it doesn't materially impact US capability in the region, given their bases in Japan etc.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/20 06:56:21


Post by: Grey Templar


Yeah. If and when Korea is reunited, the US military presence in Korea would most definitely be reduced significantly. China isn't a direct military threat to world security at the moment. We also aren't at war with China, unlike we are with North Korea.

Lots of people forget that, from a strict technical perspective, the Korean War has never ended. It's been going on for 60 years. We keep all those soldiers in South Korea because we're actually at war still.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/20 07:57:16


Post by: jhe90


 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah. If and when Korea is reunited, the US military presence in Korea would most definitely be reduced significantly. China isn't a direct military threat to world security at the moment. We also aren't at war with China, unlike we are with North Korea.

Lots of people forget that, from a strict technical perspective, the Korean War has never ended. It's been going on for 60 years. We keep all those soldiers in South Korea because we're actually at war still.


Yeah we declared a 60 year now cease fire.
The war never ended, it just went cold. Well warmish but not hot.

They could start back up whenever they felt like it which is scary.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/29 00:08:55


Post by: BaronIveagh


 TheCustomLime wrote:

For South Korea? I highly doubt the South Koreans are stupid enough to leave their entire military command in a position where they can be wiped out by pre-positioned artillery. Or at least I'd hope so.


I remind you the United States frequently has the entire chain of succession inside the blast radius of a 'first strike'. Keeping key people at a distance from the capitol is great in theory, but in practice it quickly falls by the wayside.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/29 00:41:24


Post by: Grey Templar


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 TheCustomLime wrote:

For South Korea? I highly doubt the South Koreans are stupid enough to leave their entire military command in a position where they can be wiped out by pre-positioned artillery. Or at least I'd hope so.


I remind you the United States frequently has the entire chain of succession inside the blast radius of a 'first strike'. Keeping key people at a distance from the capitol is great in theory, but in practice it quickly falls by the wayside.


If you're talking about nuclear war, in order to have at least someone from the line of succession safe, you'd have to keep at least 1 of them in a nuclear bunker at all times.

Of course in the event of a total nuclear strike, we'd have some warning. ICBMs are fast, but they give some warning. IIRC there is a doomsday bunker under the White House and the Capital. Or at least one within a few minutes drive.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/29 01:38:02


Post by: Ouze


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 TheCustomLime wrote:

For South Korea? I highly doubt the South Koreans are stupid enough to leave their entire military command in a position where they can be wiped out by pre-positioned artillery. Or at least I'd hope so.


I remind you the United States frequently has the entire chain of succession inside the blast radius of a 'first strike'. Keeping key people at a distance from the capitol is great in theory, but in practice it quickly falls by the wayside.



If only someone else had considered this possibility in the 70ish years since ICBMS have become a thing!



What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/29 08:27:21


Post by: jhe90


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4741100/North-Korea-hit-American-cities-experts-claim.html

He keeps on trying.
You know people generally call him a joke but if they start taking him seriously...

Things may get worse for him...


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/29 09:42:59


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


I appreciate the fact that it's easy for me to say this, as I'm in the middle of nowhere, but in many respects, the USA has nothing to fear from NK.

Any attack on the US mainland, a US military base, or South Korea and Japan = North Korea being wiped from the map.

NK knows it's game over if the US mainland is targeted, and I doubt if they're that stupid to go down that path.

Not even China could protect NK from the USA's wrath.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/29 15:38:28


Post by: Grey Templar


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

NK knows it's game over if the US mainland is targeted, and I doubt if they're that stupid to go down that path.


That depends on how much they believe their own propaganda.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/29 18:03:44


Post by: jhe90


 Grey Templar wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

NK knows it's game over if the US mainland is targeted, and I doubt if they're that stupid to go down that path.


That depends on how much they believe their own propaganda.


Depends but yeah. One missile headed to US mainland.
Us military might of multiple carrier battle groups rapidly moving to counter attack. 3-400 or more strike aircraft or more. And ernough ordinance to maintain combat for weeks.

Marine MEU units can be landed and combat ready in 24 hours anywhere on the earth each supplied for least a week of heavy combat on there own.


With air capacity and bringing in full feth you mode, hundred plus transport planes rapidly deploying tens of thousands of troops daily, the B52, B1 and lancers, that's gonna be one hell of a counter attack.

I doubt China would protect them if they tried to nuke someone. They may try to mount own coup and go take over themselves, to protect buffer, and depise him themselves.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/29 18:14:46


Post by: Grey Templar


Its definitely a given that NK gets utterly wiped out. We'd probably just land a nuke on Pyongyang and couple of their other cities, and use conventional weapons on their other installations.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/29 19:59:31


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


It's not just military supremacy the USA would gain in the highly unlikely event of an NK attack, but political supremacy both home and abroad.

Who would put their neck on the line if San Diego, Honolulu, or San Fran got attacked by NK? Nobody.

It's likely the whole region, plus the European Union, and NATO, would swing behind the USA.

China and Russia might provide limited support as nuisance value, but nothing on the scale of a 1950s intervention across the Yalu river.

At home, the nation would rally behind Trump and back his war measures and decisions to the hilt.

No offence intended to American dakka members, but years of studying American history and meeting a lot of Americans in my time has lead me to this conclusion:

You guys like a moral crusade, an us Vs. them situation, the Deputy facing the bad guys at high noon. IMO, it's built in the national American character. I'm not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing, I'm just saying that's the way I see it.
And we've seen it in the past with the civil war when the North rallied behind Lincoln, and WW1, and famously, when the USA demanded justice for Pearl Harbout in 1941...

IMO, any NK attack would provoke a similar national sentiment in the USA, and if NK is smart, they won't risk the wrath of the USA.




What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/29 20:44:11


Post by: djones520


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It's not just military supremacy the USA would gain in the highly unlikely event of an NK attack, but political supremacy both home and abroad.

Who would put their neck on the line if San Diego, Honolulu, or San Fran got attacked by NK? Nobody.

It's likely the whole region, plus the European Union, and NATO, would swing behind the USA.

China and Russia might provide limited support as nuisance value, but nothing on the scale of a 1950s intervention across the Yalu river.

At home, the nation would rally behind Trump and back his war measures and decisions to the hilt.

No offence intended to American dakka members, but years of studying American history and meeting a lot of Americans in my time has lead me to this conclusion:

You guys like a moral crusade, an us Vs. them situation, the Deputy facing the bad guys at high noon. IMO, it's built in the national American character. I'm not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing, I'm just saying that's the way I see it.
And we've seen it in the past with the civil war when the North rallied behind Lincoln, and WW1, and famously, when the USA demanded justice for Pearl Harbout in 1941...

IMO, any NK attack would provoke a similar national sentiment in the USA, and if NK is smart, they won't risk the wrath of the USA.




It's an important lesson anyone should learn by now.

Don't fething poke us with your stick.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/29 20:53:59


Post by: jhe90


 djones520 wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It's not just military supremacy the USA would gain in the highly unlikely event of an NK attack, but political supremacy both home and abroad.

Who would put their neck on the line if San Diego, Honolulu, or San Fran got attacked by NK? Nobody.

It's likely the whole region, plus the European Union, and NATO, would swing behind the USA.

China and Russia might provide limited support as nuisance value, but nothing on the scale of a 1950s intervention across the Yalu river.

At home, the nation would rally behind Trump and back his war measures and decisions to the hilt.

No offence intended to American dakka members, but years of studying American history and meeting a lot of Americans in my time has lead me to this conclusion:

You guys like a moral crusade, an us Vs. them situation, the Deputy facing the bad guys at high noon. IMO, it's built in the national American character. I'm not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing, I'm just saying that's the way I see it.
And we've seen it in the past with the civil war when the North rallied behind Lincoln, and WW1, and famously, when the USA demanded justice for Pearl Harbout in 1941...

IMO, any NK attack would provoke a similar national sentiment in the USA, and if NK is smart, they won't risk the wrath of the USA.




It's an important lesson anyone should learn by now.

Don't fething poke us with your stick.


Yeah, they carry a rather large stick, and are not afraid to use it when poked.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/30 23:30:07


Post by: Freddy Kruger


I'm honestly more worried about NK's civilians than anything else at the moment.

Let's face it: NK's military is a joke. It's equipment is ANCIENT (literally, their newest kit is what, early 90's?) And is fed more on hype than substance. No doubt hundreds of "volunteer" soldiers will rise up to meet the invaders, and we'll end up with a pretty twisted IRL Astra Militarum conscript + commissar spam situation...

But, on a more positive side, I'm hoping that when Kim Jong Mong gets a 500lbs bomb down his chimney as an early Christmas present courtesy of a B-52, that their quality of life will improve. Hopefully South Korea will be able to stabilize and reconnect the country (as several families were literally cut in half due to the split) and hopefully bring economic growth and just a better standard of living.

Obviously, this is the 'dream', but it might take a long time. Systematic brainwashing and a subjugation programme might be difficult to break, but I'm hopeful that within my lifetime, Korea is once again a united, peaceful country...


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/30 23:32:44


Post by: djones520


 Freddy Kruger wrote:
I'm honestly more worried about NK's civilians than anything else at the moment.

Let's face it: NK's military is a joke. It's equipment is ANCIENT (literally, their newest kit is what, early 90's?) And is fed more on hype than substance. No doubt hundreds of "volunteer" soldiers will rise up to meet the invaders, and we'll end up with a pretty twisted IRL Astra Militarum conscript + commissar spam situation...

But, on a more positive side, I'm hoping that when Kim Jong Mong gets a 500lbs bomb down his chimney as an early Christmas present courtesy of a B-52, that their quality of life will improve. Hopefully South Korea will be able to stabilize and reconnect the country (as several families were literally cut in half due to the split) and hopefully bring economic growth and just a better standard of living.

Obviously, this is the 'dream', but it might take a long time. Systematic brainwashing and a subjugation programme might be difficult to break, but I'm hopeful that within my lifetime, Korea is once again a united, peaceful country...


While I don't want to take away from your point, I was amused at you mocking early 90's technology, and then immediately referencing using a B-52 to hit them.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/30 23:40:21


Post by: jhe90


 djones520 wrote:
 Freddy Kruger wrote:
I'm honestly more worried about NK's civilians than anything else at the moment.

Let's face it: NK's military is a joke. It's equipment is ANCIENT (literally, their newest kit is what, early 90's?) And is fed more on hype than substance. No doubt hundreds of "volunteer" soldiers will rise up to meet the invaders, and we'll end up with a pretty twisted IRL Astra Militarum conscript + commissar spam situation...

But, on a more positive side, I'm hoping that when Kim Jong Mong gets a 500lbs bomb down his chimney as an early Christmas present courtesy of a B-52, that their quality of life will improve. Hopefully South Korea will be able to stabilize and reconnect the country (as several families were literally cut in half due to the split) and hopefully bring economic growth and just a better standard of living.

Obviously, this is the 'dream', but it might take a long time. Systematic brainwashing and a subjugation programme might be difficult to break, but I'm hopeful that within my lifetime, Korea is once again a united, peaceful country...


While I don't want to take away from your point, I was amused at you mocking early 90's technology, and then immediately referencing using a B-52 to hit them.


Give em some credit.
There tech may be outdated.

But a majority of that is well tested and with maitence and spares very reliable as older.

State art tech has kinks in it.
Older, worked out and well tested. A Ak47 is ancient... But when did you last hear there reliability claimed as bad.
Moder Nato rifles, sure more précise etc. Easier to jam.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/31 01:46:36


Post by: Freddy Kruger


 djones520 wrote:

While I don't want to take away from your point, I was amused at you mocking early 90's technology, and then immediately referencing using a B-52 to hit them.


Whoops. Due to a syndrome I call "fat fingers" it seems that I hit both the 5 key and 2 key while trying to type 'B-2' which would have been a FAR more apt choice!

Also, while I take nothing away from the greatest assault rifle ever made, I was talking more about the users rather than the item in question. Anyone can actually fire a gun. Either or not they hit something at 100m+ is another thing entirely.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/31 02:20:41


Post by: sebster


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
No offence intended to American dakka members, but years of studying American history and meeting a lot of Americans in my time has lead me to this conclusion:

You guys like a moral crusade, an us Vs. them situation, the Deputy facing the bad guys at high noon. IMO, it's built in the national American character. I'm not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing, I'm just saying that's the way I see it.
And we've seen it in the past with the civil war when the North rallied behind Lincoln, and WW1, and famously, when the USA demanded justice for Pearl Harbout in 1941...

IMO, any NK attack would provoke a similar national sentiment in the USA, and if NK is smart, they won't risk the wrath of the USA.


I agree with your point that a NK attack on the US (or Japan or SK for that matter) would remove any diplomatic cover for NK, and also remove any argument for patience with NK.

But I'm a bit puzzled by your claim that the US is somehow unique in how it addresses an attack upon itself. Sure, the US rallies to the flag when attacked by an outside force, but is this not true for every country?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 jhe90 wrote:
Give em some credit.
There tech may be outdated.

But a majority of that is well tested and with maitence and spares very reliable as older.


NK had chronic issues getting spare parts for its fleet of vehicles. A lot of its fleet has been cannibalized to provide spare parts to the remaining vehicles. There's a whole lot trucks that are still formally part of the NK military, but haven't moved in decades, and likely have had their interiors stripped for the other vehicles.

State art tech has kinks in it.
Older, worked out and well tested. A Ak47 is ancient... But when did you last hear there reliability claimed as bad.
Moder Nato rifles, sure more précise etc. Easier to jam.


Not really. The rifle these jamming stories most commonly refer to is the AR-15 and its many variants. Not only is this rifle far from 'state of the art', being 50 years old, the stories of its unreliability come primarily from its troubled original roll out, also 50 years ago. The rifle now is very reliable, mature tech.

Nor is it as simple as older tech being inherently more reliable. Motor vehicles 50 years ago had much higher maintenance requirements, far greater reliability problems, and much greater sensitivity to environmental factors like the cold than they do today. And that's if we're talking about new builds based on old, proven tech. In many cases NK is using the same actual vehicles given to them by the Soviets 60 or 70 years ago. Stuff that's been in use that long has reliability issues, no matter good and robust the design was back in the day. And Soviet vehicles were pretty crappy, even by the standards of the time, so...

All that said, this doesn't mean war against NK is automatically a walk over. It means we can take for granted that the US and allies will have the absolutely dominant military. That dominance will mean NK will be allowed minimal mobility, and certainly be allowed no conventional offensive ability. But overcoming the thousands of fixed position bunkers and extensive underground networks will be an absolute gak of a job, and while that work is underway NK will deliver a horrible payload on to SK civilian areas.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/31 05:14:32


Post by: Spetulhu


 sebster wrote:
I'm a bit puzzled by your claim that the US is somehow unique in how it addresses an attack upon itself. Sure, the US rallies to the flag when attacked by an outside force, but is this not true for every country?


Rallies, ofc, but the USA is also one of the very few countries posed to strike back immediately over vast distances. If little Kim gets a real intercontinental missile in working order AND manages to hit a US target that's pretty much all he can do to the US itself. His chosen enemy can have carrier groups there within days, the marine corps in a few weeks and all the rest of their conventional power sometimes the same year. American politicians like to mention hos large NKs military budget is (as a percentage of their economy) but seldom remember to state it's about what some less than superpower NATO members spend in real cash for a little army and a couple dozen fighters...


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/31 06:15:05


Post by: sebster


Spetulhu wrote:
Rallies, ofc, but the USA is also one of the very few countries posed to strike back immediately over vast distances.


Which is really a function of the size and capability of the US, rather than its culture.

I think really the message here is that if NK strikes SK, NK is toast. If it strikes Japan, NK is toast. If it strikes China, NK is toast. If NK digs a tunnel to Pakistan and sends a donkey with a nuke tied to it's tail in to downtown Lahore... NK is toast. There's no magic element to US culture that produces a more severe or more certain result than if NK attacked any other country.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/31 06:41:29


Post by: Witzkatz


At this point, I'm not wondering how and when NK would be defeated in a war, because they will be defeated. I'm more wondering if the surrounding states and the world in general will be able to set up SOME kind of plan to buffer the unimaginable human catastrophe afterwards, with millions of starving and bombed-out-of-their-houses civilians on that peninsula. Everybody knows - this would be the result of war. Everybody has had time to get some planning done on how to deal with it, but if it really happens, I fear those plans won't stand up to reality...


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/31 08:13:47


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 sebster wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
No offence intended to American dakka members, but years of studying American history and meeting a lot of Americans in my time has lead me to this conclusion:

You guys like a moral crusade, an us Vs. them situation, the Deputy facing the bad guys at high noon. IMO, it's built in the national American character. I'm not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing, I'm just saying that's the way I see it.
And we've seen it in the past with the civil war when the North rallied behind Lincoln, and WW1, and famously, when the USA demanded justice for Pearl Harbout in 1941...

IMO, any NK attack would provoke a similar national sentiment in the USA, and if NK is smart, they won't risk the wrath of the USA.


I agree with your point that a NK attack on the US (or Japan or SK for that matter) would remove any diplomatic cover for NK, and also remove any argument for patience with NK.

But I'm a bit puzzled by your claim that the US is somehow unique in how it addresses an attack upon itself. Sure, the US rallies to the flag when attacked by an outside force, but is this not true for every country?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 jhe90 wrote:
Give em some credit.
There tech may be outdated.

But a majority of that is well tested and with maitence and spares very reliable as older.


NK had chronic issues getting spare parts for its fleet of vehicles. A lot of its fleet has been cannibalized to provide spare parts to the remaining vehicles. There's a whole lot trucks that are still formally part of the NK military, but haven't moved in decades, and likely have had their interiors stripped for the other vehicles.

State art tech has kinks in it.
Older, worked out and well tested. A Ak47 is ancient... But when did you last hear there reliability claimed as bad.
Moder Nato rifles, sure more précise etc. Easier to jam.


Not really. The rifle these jamming stories most commonly refer to is the AR-15 and its many variants. Not only is this rifle far from 'state of the art', being 50 years old, the stories of its unreliability come primarily from its troubled original roll out, also 50 years ago. The rifle now is very reliable, mature tech.

Nor is it as simple as older tech being inherently more reliable. Motor vehicles 50 years ago had much higher maintenance requirements, far greater reliability problems, and much greater sensitivity to environmental factors like the cold than they do today. And that's if we're talking about new builds based on old, proven tech. In many cases NK is using the same actual vehicles given to them by the Soviets 60 or 70 years ago. Stuff that's been in use that long has reliability issues, no matter good and robust the design was back in the day. And Soviet vehicles were pretty crappy, even by the standards of the time, so...

All that said, this doesn't mean war against NK is automatically a walk over. It means we can take for granted that the US and allies will have the absolutely dominant military. That dominance will mean NK will be allowed minimal mobility, and certainly be allowed no conventional offensive ability. But overcoming the thousands of fixed position bunkers and extensive underground networks will be an absolute gak of a job, and while that work is underway NK will deliver a horrible payload on to SK civilian areas.


For sure, most countries would not take an attack lying down, but the USA is one of the very few nations who can back up the talk with direct action.

Within a few hours of any attack on the US mainland, the US military would be hitting back hard.

For the record, I don't want to see any fighting. So don't mistake me for some war monger.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Witzkatz wrote:
At this point, I'm not wondering how and when NK would be defeated in a war, because they will be defeated. I'm more wondering if the surrounding states and the world in general will be able to set up SOME kind of plan to buffer the unimaginable human catastrophe afterwards, with millions of starving and bombed-out-of-their-houses civilians on that peninsula. Everybody knows - this would be the result of war. Everybody has had time to get some planning done on how to deal with it, but if it really happens, I fear those plans won't stand up to reality...


Good point. The aid effort needed would probably bankrupt the UN, need hundreds of billions in cash, and would probably take years to bring the situation back to 'normal.'


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/31 11:01:58


Post by: Witzkatz


Good point. The aid effort needed would probably bankrupt the UN, need hundreds of billions in cash, and would probably take years to bring the situation back to 'normal.'


Setting up a damn good aid plan and having a concerted effort by a large coalition of nations in solving that humanitarian post-war crisis efficiently - I think that is the one "good" thing that could come out of a possible 2nd Korean War. Because, as many others said, smashing NK to bits and glassing the whole place with radioactive or long-term-toxic ordnance is NO problem at all, that's what a lot of nations are good at. But defeating NK militarily and THEN making sure the oppressed masses get fed, healed and taken care of instead of leaving them to rot, that's where "the West" in a wider sense has a chance to show itself to be "the good guys" again. Naturally, Chinese cooperation would be necessary, but I think they'd help out for their own sake anyway.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/31 12:47:01


Post by: Rosebuddy


 Witzkatz wrote:
Good point. The aid effort needed would probably bankrupt the UN, need hundreds of billions in cash, and would probably take years to bring the situation back to 'normal.'


Setting up a damn good aid plan and having a concerted effort by a large coalition of nations in solving that humanitarian post-war crisis efficiently - I think that is the one "good" thing that could come out of a possible 2nd Korean War. Because, as many others said, smashing NK to bits and glassing the whole place with radioactive or long-term-toxic ordnance is NO problem at all, that's what a lot of nations are good at. But defeating NK militarily and THEN making sure the oppressed masses get fed, healed and taken care of instead of leaving them to rot, that's where "the West" in a wider sense has a chance to show itself to be "the good guys" again. Naturally, Chinese cooperation would be necessary, but I think they'd help out for their own sake anyway.


I wouldn't be too optimistic here. I mean, let's look at how gracefully the West has handled Iraq or the refugee situation from Syria. Western countries would only rebuild the Korean peninsula if doing so was profitable and/or a power grab against China and Russia.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/31 13:06:27


Post by: Frazzled


 Freddy Kruger wrote:
 djones520 wrote:

While I don't want to take away from your point, I was amused at you mocking early 90's technology, and then immediately referencing using a B-52 to hit them.


Whoops. Due to a syndrome I call "fat fingers" it seems that I hit both the 5 key and 2 key while trying to type 'B-2' which would have been a FAR more apt choice!

Also, while I take nothing away from the greatest assault rifle ever made, I was talking more about the users rather than the item in question. Anyone can actually fire a gun. Either or not they hit something at 100m+ is another thing entirely.
you know who authorized the B2? Carter. You know 1970s Carter.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/31 15:29:49


Post by: Witzkatz


Rosebuddy wrote:
 Witzkatz wrote:
Good point. The aid effort needed would probably bankrupt the UN, need hundreds of billions in cash, and would probably take years to bring the situation back to 'normal.'


Setting up a damn good aid plan and having a concerted effort by a large coalition of nations in solving that humanitarian post-war crisis efficiently - I think that is the one "good" thing that could come out of a possible 2nd Korean War. Because, as many others said, smashing NK to bits and glassing the whole place with radioactive or long-term-toxic ordnance is NO problem at all, that's what a lot of nations are good at. But defeating NK militarily and THEN making sure the oppressed masses get fed, healed and taken care of instead of leaving them to rot, that's where "the West" in a wider sense has a chance to show itself to be "the good guys" again. Naturally, Chinese cooperation would be necessary, but I think they'd help out for their own sake anyway.


I wouldn't be too optimistic here. I mean, let's look at how gracefully the West has handled Iraq or the refugee situation from Syria. Western countries would only rebuild the Korean peninsula if doing so was profitable and/or a power grab against China and Russia.


Absolutely. There would be some underlying incentive to do this, I guess, but maybe gaining support in other regions of the world as a result of "altruistic" re-building might be enough. And Iraq and Syria are exactly the places I was thinking about where things didn't go well - I'd hope that, by now, think-tanks and analysts would have enough information about how NOT to do things that the West could at least theoretically come up with a workable plan.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/07/31 15:56:25


Post by: Grey Templar


 Witzkatz wrote:
At this point, I'm not wondering how and when NK would be defeated in a war, because they will be defeated. I'm more wondering if the surrounding states and the world in general will be able to set up SOME kind of plan to buffer the unimaginable human catastrophe afterwards, with millions of starving and bombed-out-of-their-houses civilians on that peninsula. Everybody knows - this would be the result of war. Everybody has had time to get some planning done on how to deal with it, but if it really happens, I fear those plans won't stand up to reality...


Nobody likely has any plan sufficient.

What likely happens is you have another split. The North Koreans who have totally bought into their own propaganda flee northwards into China since for them that is the closest to "friendly" territory. Chinese forces might gun them down as they flee northwards, but many will make it across into China, where they become China's problem. The remainder either flee south or stay where they are.

So really it will likely end up where South Korea and China split the refugee burden in half. You end up with millions of people starving to death or being killed in the weeks and months to follow. Likely a lot of mental breakdowns from culture shock as they experience the modern world. And even for decades afterwards, these people will have no useful skills to contribute to society outside of manual labor, and have a host of psychological issues from having lived under the regime for so long.

Both China and South Korea probably would experience economic downturns as a result of this, and the world at large would feel some effects too.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/01 17:52:09


Post by: Frazzled


Alternatively, NK could decide to get filthy rich like China. I cannot figure out why they do not go that route.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/01 17:55:50


Post by: feeder


 Frazzled wrote:
Alternatively, NK could decide to get filthy rich like China. I cannot figure out why they do not go that route.


I suspect a combination of inertia and sunk cost fallacy.

From NK's point of view, they have a huge state apparatus committed to maintaining the status quo, and they've gone so far, they can't afford to admit it was all a mistake and start again.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/01 18:21:51


Post by: Grey Templar


 feeder wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Alternatively, NK could decide to get filthy rich like China. I cannot figure out why they do not go that route.


I suspect a combination of inertia and sunk cost fallacy.

From NK's point of view, they have a huge state apparatus committed to maintaining the status quo, and they've gone so far, they can't afford to admit it was all a mistake and start again.


There is that, plus given what we know about their economy and natural resources they don't have much of anything that they could base a functioning modern economy on.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/01 20:31:51


Post by: jhe90


 Grey Templar wrote:
 feeder wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Alternatively, NK could decide to get filthy rich like China. I cannot figure out why they do not go that route.


I suspect a combination of inertia and sunk cost fallacy.

From NK's point of view, they have a huge state apparatus committed to maintaining the status quo, and they've gone so far, they can't afford to admit it was all a mistake and start again.


There is that, plus given what we know about their economy and natural resources they don't have much of anything that they could base a functioning modern economy on.


They have some valuable natural resources, and maybe more than we know. Its a very closed country.
There may be greater material than we know.

Maybe hidden, unable to found by there tech, but possible by China or others.
There's alot we do not know. Its a very opaque nation.



What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/02 01:01:02


Post by: Co'tor Shas


I mean, the land hasn't changed dramatically since the Koeran war. We aren't dealing with pre-Perry Japan or something.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/02 14:44:59


Post by: Easy E


Containment and leaking in $$$ is the only way forward.

We have seen this strategy work to often and too successfully on other enemies for it not to work again.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/02 17:19:42


Post by: jhe90


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I mean, the land hasn't changed dramatically since the Koeran war. We aren't dealing with pre-Perry Japan or something.


Meant maps, last "free" information is 50-60 years old. Nee wtch has moved forward rapidly.

There may be vast reserves of ores, fuels or rare earths hidden away no one ever found.
China might find them, but China and NK are not friends anymore exactly.

More just a nation of convenience.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/03 08:15:49


Post by: sebster


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
For sure, most countries would not take an attack lying down, but the USA is one of the very few nations who can back up the talk with direct action.

Within a few hours of any attack on the US mainland, the US military would be hitting back hard.


Sure, but as I said that's a measure of US capability, not national culture. But I agree with your overall point that directly attacking is basically the national version of 'suicide by cop'.

For the record, I don't want to see any fighting. So don't mistake me for some war monger.


Cool. I didn't get that impression from your posts, but its still good to clarify, given there's a fairly worrisome number of posts in this thread that seem a bit gung ho.

Good point. The aid effort needed would probably bankrupt the UN, need hundreds of billions in cash, and would probably take years to bring the situation back to 'normal.'


South Korea is a strong economy, but so was West Germany and they still struggled with re-integrating East Germany. And North Korea is many times more screwed up than East Germany was, and that transition happened peacefully, the North Korean situation might happen after a war.

It will be a money pit that'd make occupation of Iraq look frugal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Frazzled wrote:
you know who authorized the B2? Carter. You know 1970s Carter.


Carter also authorised the Abrams, and a whole lot of other weapon system. It's funny that the vaunted military build up under Reagan was largely due to the realisation of new weapon platforms begun under Carter.

Not that Carter was a warmonger or anything like that, but he like every US president wanted a military capable of meeting the threats of the day. Before Carter the dominant theory was that the US didn't need to be prepared, as war was industrial and between the US and Western Europe they had 5 out of 6 of the major industrial sectors. They would steadily out produce the Soviets in the event of a hot war. The conflicts of the middle east shattered that assumption, fighting ended in weeks, even days, with thousands of units destroyed. It became clear you couldn't make your army once the war has started, what you had at the start was all you were going to have to fight the war.

So the joint chiefs took a new plan to Carter, to make sure the US had a technological edge over the Soviets all the time. So you got the B-2, the Abrams and a bunch of other stuff.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/03 08:39:49


Post by: jhe90


Best option I think is China quietly takes over and slowly modernizes the nation not integrating them into China directly to preserve a buffer zone.

They are not ideal but a slightly more gentle way.

...

After a war things get hard as NK uses infrastructure that's out of the past, some people will never stop hating US, Gorilla tactics.

Be a very expensive gak show.
And worse. Germanny reintergrated decades ago, the east still is economically slightly weaker than the western half.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/03 16:30:01


Post by: Easy E


I changed my mind, forget containment.

We need President Trump and Chairman Kim to resolve control of the Korean penninsula in a high stakes game of golf.

Problem solved since we know Trump is the greatest presidential golfer in history, and Kim's father invented the game!


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/03 17:00:46


Post by: feeder


 Easy E wrote:
I changed my mind, forget containment.

We need President Trump and Chairman Kim to resolve control of the Korean penninsula in a high stakes game of golf.

Problem solved since we know Trump is the greatest presidential golfer in history, and Kim's father invented the game!


I think they should ro-sham-bo each other for supremacy.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/06 02:56:53


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Ouze wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
 TheCustomLime wrote:

For South Korea? I highly doubt the South Koreans are stupid enough to leave their entire military command in a position where they can be wiped out by pre-positioned artillery. Or at least I'd hope so.


I remind you the United States frequently has the entire chain of succession inside the blast radius of a 'first strike'. Keeping key people at a distance from the capitol is great in theory, but in practice it quickly falls by the wayside.



If only someone else had considered this possibility in the 70ish years since ICBMS have become a thing!



Take it from someone who works deep underground in a somewhat newer protected facility designed to survive the end of the world: One, being rated to withstand nuclear attack is like being bullet resistant. It comes in varying grades of protection. I'm under 300 feet of mountain and concrete and we have a (supposedly) 75% chance above a 400 kiloton direct hit. That's about one W87 warhead, fyi. That bunker under the east wing? That's to make the president feel better, because it's not saving gak in the face of anything reasonably modern.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/06 04:11:09


Post by: Grey Templar


Indeed. Though I would be shocked if there wasn't always a helicopter standing by to evacuate the President if an ICBM is detected heading in the general direction of DC while he is there. It's not like ICBMs travel across the world relatively instantly. You'd have 15-20 minutes, at least, of warning of a missile coming from, say, Russia or China.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/06 05:59:41


Post by: Peregrine


 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed. Though I would be shocked if there wasn't always a helicopter standing by to evacuate the President if an ICBM is detected heading in the general direction of DC while he is there. It's not like ICBMs travel across the world relatively instantly. You'd have 15-20 minutes, at least, of warning of a missile coming from, say, Russia or China.


I'd be surprised. There's really no point to it, getting a helicopter in and out is going to take a while and it's not going to be one ICBM. It's going to be a lot of them, blanketing the entire DC area to ensure destruction of the many significant targets in and near DC. And if it's Russia or China it's possibly going to be sub-launched missiles launched on depressed trajectories from just off the coast. And there you're talking about ~5 minutes from launch until impact, way too little time to attempt any kind of evacuation. That would be the whole point of launching a decapitation strike without warning, to leave no opportunity for key targets to survive.

Of course, the much more likely scenario for a nuclear war is that it's an escalation from major crisis -> conventional shooting -> tactical nuclear weapons -> strategic nuclear weapons. That leaves hours, probably days or more, to get the president to a secure location. Or, in the case of our current president, to leave him behind and rescue someone more useful.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/06 16:07:52


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed. Though I would be shocked if there wasn't always a helicopter standing by to evacuate the President if an ICBM is detected heading in the general direction of DC while he is there. It's not like ICBMs travel across the world relatively instantly. You'd have 15-20 minutes, at least, of warning of a missile coming from, say, Russia or China.


4 minutes. The rule of thumb is four minutes.

It assumes a sub launch. Passing over North Warning at Inuvik or Yellowknife from Siberia an ICBM will hit Galveston in 15 min. Depending on trajectory, though, it might bypass North Warning entirely and not be detected until Joint Surveillance picks it up coming in over California, and then we're back to 4 min or less.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:

I'd be surprised. There's really no point to it, getting a helicopter in and out is going to take a while and it's not going to be one ICBM. It's going to be a lot of them, blanketing the entire DC area to ensure destruction of the many significant targets in and near DC.



Peregrine, you may want to brush up on just how potent a SINGLE ICBM is anymore. Dropping a single 500 kiloton airburst over DC will cause an overpressure wave all the way to Arlington and 3rd degree burns from Silver Spring to Alexandria. A surface blast will intensify local destruction and have noticeable fallout all the way to the New York metropolitan area. A hit of this type in the center of down town will eliminate pretty much everything from ground zero across the River at the Pentagon. The White House would be inside the actual crater, which between the in-rushing Potomac and the being vaporized, pretty bad all around.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/06 16:47:15


Post by: Grey Templar


True, I was not accounting for a sub based missile.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/06 16:49:23


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed. Though I would be shocked if there wasn't always a helicopter standing by to evacuate the President if an ICBM is detected heading in the general direction of DC while he is there. It's not like ICBMs travel across the world relatively instantly. You'd have 15-20 minutes, at least, of warning of a missile coming from, say, Russia or China.


4 minutes. The rule of thumb is four minutes.

It assumes a sub launch. Passing over North Warning at Inuvik or Yellowknife from Siberia an ICBM will hit Galveston in 15 min. Depending on trajectory, though, it might bypass North Warning entirely and not be detected until Joint Surveillance picks it up coming in over California, and then we're back to 4 min or less.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:

I'd be surprised. There's really no point to it, getting a helicopter in and out is going to take a while and it's not going to be one ICBM. It's going to be a lot of them, blanketing the entire DC area to ensure destruction of the many significant targets in and near DC.



Peregrine, you may want to brush up on just how potent a SINGLE ICBM is anymore. Dropping a single 500 kiloton airburst over DC will cause an overpressure wave all the way to Arlington and 3rd degree burns from Silver Spring to Alexandria. A surface blast will intensify local destruction and have noticeable fallout all the way to the New York metropolitan area. A hit of this type in the center of down town will eliminate pretty much everything from ground zero across the River at the Pentagon. The White House would be inside the actual crater, which between the in-rushing Potomac and the being vaporized, pretty bad all around.


And that's ONE of the how many MIRVs on a modern ICBM? Twelve or something?


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/06 17:13:31


Post by: jhe90


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed. Though I would be shocked if there wasn't always a helicopter standing by to evacuate the President if an ICBM is detected heading in the general direction of DC while he is there. It's not like ICBMs travel across the world relatively instantly. You'd have 15-20 minutes, at least, of warning of a missile coming from, say, Russia or China.


4 minutes. The rule of thumb is four minutes.

It assumes a sub launch. Passing over North Warning at Inuvik or Yellowknife from Siberia an ICBM will hit Galveston in 15 min. Depending on trajectory, though, it might bypass North Warning entirely and not be detected until Joint Surveillance picks it up coming in over California, and then we're back to 4 min or less.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:

I'd be surprised. There's really no point to it, getting a helicopter in and out is going to take a while and it's not going to be one ICBM. It's going to be a lot of them, blanketing the entire DC area to ensure destruction of the many significant targets in and near DC.



Peregrine, you may want to brush up on just how potent a SINGLE ICBM is anymore. Dropping a single 500 kiloton airburst over DC will cause an overpressure wave all the way to Arlington and 3rd degree burns from Silver Spring to Alexandria. A surface blast will intensify local destruction and have noticeable fallout all the way to the New York metropolitan area. A hit of this type in the center of down town will eliminate pretty much everything from ground zero across the River at the Pentagon. The White House would be inside the actual crater, which between the in-rushing Potomac and the being vaporized, pretty bad all around.


And that's ONE of the how many MIRVs on a modern ICBM? Twelve or something?


About 12. Per missile for largest ICBM.
And most nations have a arsenal of those in nuclear powers.

A sub launched ICBM might have less warheads than a big minutemen in the silos.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/06 19:07:53


Post by: BaronIveagh


 jhe90 wrote:

A sub launched ICBM might have less warheads than a big minutemen in the silos.


Sub launched missiles tend to just have one warhead. 'Tend' is the key word, but the simulation for DC I ran used the data for a US trident D5 SLBM for both air burst and low level detonations. Projections showed the air burst killed more people directly (about 450,000) but did less damage to persons in concrete buildings. The low level detonation yielded the deaths of everyone in central DC, even those in protected facilities, but at the same time did not have the wide area effect of an airburst leading to an overall lower casualty rate FROM THE BOMB BLAST. It does not take into account that the fallout would radiate people in a massive plume up into New York or the people killed by the Potomac flooding DC as ground subsidence takes place post nuke.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/06 19:11:37


Post by: Bromsy


Well, you don't want your first strike to actually take out the entire chain of succession, because then the surviving military chain of command takes over and might actually be able to prosecute an effective counter strike. You want to leave like... the secretary of health and human services alive to sow confusion.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/06 19:24:28


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Bromsy wrote:
Well, you don't want your first strike to actually take out the entire chain of succession, because then the surviving military chain of command takes over and might actually be able to prosecute an effective counter strike. You want to leave like... the secretary of health and human services alive to sow confusion.


The military chain of command that is ALSO in the same blast zone? The Pentagon sits right on the projected crater lip assuming that downtown DC is the target. While I know that there are other commands elsewhere, that pretty much decapitates all branches of service in a worst case scenario. Imagine the anarchy losing the heads of both the military and civilian sides of the government. At the same time as entering war with a foreign power.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/06 19:45:00


Post by: jhe90


BaronIveagh wrote:
 jhe90 wrote:

A sub launched ICBM might have less warheads than a big minutemen in the silos.


Sub launched missiles tend to just have one warhead. 'Tend' is the key word, but the simulation for DC I ran used the data for a US trident D5 SLBM for both air burst and low level detonations. Projections showed the air burst killed more people directly (about 450,000) but did less damage to persons in concrete buildings. The low level detonation yielded the deaths of everyone in central DC, even those in protected facilities, but at the same time did not have the wide area effect of an airburst leading to an overall lower casualty rate FROM THE BOMB BLAST. It does not take into account that the fallout would radiate people in a massive plume up into New York or the people killed by the Potomac flooding DC as ground subsidence takes place post nuke.


Bromsy wrote:Well, you don't want your first strike to actually take out the entire chain of succession, because then the surviving military chain of command takes over and might actually be able to prosecute an effective counter strike. You want to leave like... the secretary of health and human services alive to sow confusion.


Tend does not be so much as a problem when you can carry over a dozen per submarine and with nuclear defense missiles, well your going to bracket the key targets with multiple strikes to ensure the destruction of critical targets such as capitals, and key military bases.

And air burst, or ground explosions.
You can pick and choose when you have multiples of ICBM.

First strike can be a heavy impact, and though most nations have defence command and the civilian in same area to allow senior defense and civilians officials to be able to keep in contact.

However there's always pre planned tactics, pre planned missions and secondary command centres.
If primary command goes down the second layers kick into the system.

Its cold but the system is fully capable of mantiaining redundancy with pre planned strike missions, pre planned orders.
If x ccommand goes quiet for x time, second layer protocol activates, second layer opens sealed orders and exacutes a counter strike.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/06 20:48:48


Post by: BaronIveagh


 jhe90 wrote:

However there's always pre planned tactics, pre planned missions and secondary command centres.
If primary command goes down the second layers kick into the system.

Its cold but the system is fully capable of mantiaining redundancy with pre planned strike missions, pre planned orders.
If x ccommand goes quiet for x time, second layer protocol activates, second layer opens sealed orders and executes a counter strike.


They used to, but like the DEW Line, they've generally fallen by the wayside in the name of cuts to programs and personnel. It's a safe assumption that NORAD will be useless as they no longer work inside Cheyenne Mountain but rather at Peterson AFB, a first strike target.

The problem is that recent administrations (both parties) have been trying to dispose of facilities that, like the one I work in, keep all that gak going after Washington goes bye bye. I keep getting emails about how important we are to our department, and how we need to be done away with right away and moved to someplace like Washington so that executives can just take a limo over to us, rather than have to take a plane, and then a humvee, then a jeep, and then an ox cart out to us. Which of the above do you think is more secure?


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/06 22:40:30


Post by: jhe90


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 jhe90 wrote:

However there's always pre planned tactics, pre planned missions and secondary command centres.
If primary command goes down the second layers kick into the system.

Its cold but the system is fully capable of mantiaining redundancy with pre planned strike missions, pre planned orders.
If x ccommand goes quiet for x time, second layer protocol activates, second layer opens sealed orders and executes a counter strike.


They used to, but like the DEW Line, they've generally fallen by the wayside in the name of cuts to programs and personnel. It's a safe assumption that NORAD will be useless as they no longer work inside Cheyenne Mountain but rather at Peterson AFB, a first strike target.

The problem is that recent administrations (both parties) have been trying to dispose of facilities that, like the one I work in, keep all that gak going after Washington goes bye bye. I keep getting emails about how important we are to our department, and how we need to be done away with right away and moved to someplace like Washington so that executives can just take a limo over to us, rather than have to take a plane, and then a humvee, then a jeep, and then an ox cart out to us. Which of the above do you think is more secure?



Cheyanne mountain is clad in a mile of granite fething mountain. Back up everything. And already built and solid as hell and alot cheaper than a new facility.
Gotta face palm. I ain't military bit even I can see that positioning hardened backups, away from key cities, and targets. Its proof vs everything from nukes tp a bad storm, or nation wide power issues as own back ups. This is a good idea.

Cannot be even dented by terror attack and capable of furfilling mission no matter what be in war, terror, extreme weather, or any other Emergancy from zombies to volcanic eruption situation. 100% reliable command and control facilities.

This and other facilities ensure that the US remains in functional command no matter what happens.
They cannot be attacked easily, cannot be damaged by floods, hurricanes, or other events easily at all that would easily disable a regular even reinforced structure. There likely in sesimicaly stable zones or too reinforced to care, so qauke proof.

They can have a super storm going over and remain in operation, doing there job or even coordinating rescue efforts.
Very short sighted. There value is not just end of the world usage.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/07 01:25:20


Post by: BaronIveagh


 jhe90 wrote:

Very short sighted. There value is not just end of the world usage.


Fortunately, my agency being entirely decapitated atm has got us working at cross purposes and all sorts of departmental tangles that should slow things down until sanity returns to Washington. We may have it sorted out by the end of our current project, sometime in 2065, current estimate.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/07 08:08:09


Post by: jhe90


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 jhe90 wrote:

Very short sighted. There value is not just end of the world usage.


Fortunately, my agency being entirely decapitated atm has got us working at cross purposes and all sorts of departmental tangles that should slow things down until sanity returns to Washington. We may have it sorted out by the end of our current project, sometime in 2065, current estimate.


Someone knows how to play the DC games.
So many ways to delay, decoy, and deflect.

The swamp got drained, it just became political one instead.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/07 15:16:26


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Bromsy wrote:
Well, you don't want your first strike to actually take out the entire chain of succession, because then the surviving military chain of command takes over and might actually be able to prosecute an effective counter strike. You want to leave like... the secretary of health and human services alive to sow confusion.


That has zero effect on the capability for submarine retaliation as all sub commanders (at least in the British navy) have sealed orders to be opened in the event of a nuclear attack and they do not require that they receive confirmation of an attack from command if other criteria is met. For our navy, that criteria is not being able to pick up BBC radio 4's Today program for a set amount of time.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/09 00:06:06


Post by: Dreadclaw69


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40871416

North Korea says it is considering missile strikes near the US Pacific territory of Guam, just hours after President Donald Trump threatened Pyongyang with "fire and fury".

The North's official news agency said it was mulling a plan to fire medium-to-long-range rockets around Guam, where US strategic bombers are based.

The statement marks a sharp rise in rhetoric between the two countries.

The UN recently approved further economic sanctions against the country.

President Trump's comments followed a media report that claimed the North had made a nuclear warhead small enough to fit inside its missiles.

The Washington Post report, which cited US intelligence officials, suggests North Korea is developing nuclear weapons capable of hitting the US at a much faster rate than expected.

The North's official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said its military was "carefully examining the operational plan for making an enveloping fire at the areas around Guam with medium-to-long-range strategic ballistic rocket Hwasong-12".

It said the plan would be reported to the Supreme Command after "full examination and completion" and put into practice at the order of leader Kim Jong-un, South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported.

The heated rhetoric between the US and North Korea intensified after Pyongyang tested two intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) in July, claiming it now had the ability to hit the US.

Mr Trump told reporters on Tuesday: "North Korea best not make any more threats to the US. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen."

Veteran US Senator John McCain was sceptical about Mr Trump's statement.
"The great leaders that I have seen, they don't threaten unless they are ready to act and I'm not sure that President Trump is ready to act," said Senator McCain.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/09 00:59:56


Post by: whembly


 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40871416

North Korea says it is considering missile strikes near the US Pacific territory of Guam, just hours after President Donald Trump threatened Pyongyang with "fire and fury".

The North's official news agency said it was mulling a plan to fire medium-to-long-range rockets around Guam, where US strategic bombers are based.

The statement marks a sharp rise in rhetoric between the two countries.

The UN recently approved further economic sanctions against the country.

President Trump's comments followed a media report that claimed the North had made a nuclear warhead small enough to fit inside its missiles.

The Washington Post report, which cited US intelligence officials, suggests North Korea is developing nuclear weapons capable of hitting the US at a much faster rate than expected.

The North's official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said its military was "carefully examining the operational plan for making an enveloping fire at the areas around Guam with medium-to-long-range strategic ballistic rocket Hwasong-12".

It said the plan would be reported to the Supreme Command after "full examination and completion" and put into practice at the order of leader Kim Jong-un, South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported.

The heated rhetoric between the US and North Korea intensified after Pyongyang tested two intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) in July, claiming it now had the ability to hit the US.

Mr Trump told reporters on Tuesday: "North Korea best not make any more threats to the US. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen."

Veteran US Senator John McCain was sceptical about Mr Trump's statement.
"The great leaders that I have seen, they don't threaten unless they are ready to act and I'm not sure that President Trump is ready to act," said Senator McCain.

We're going to war... aren't we?

Jeez...


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/09 01:06:39


Post by: Dreadclaw69


I sincerely hope not.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/09 04:09:35


Post by: JimOnMars


A strike on Guam would be about the dumbest thing he could do. It would give Trump an excuse. Is this guy actually suicidal?


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/09 04:59:22


Post by: sebster


I did not expect this thread would produce such an interesting side conversation about nukes, US facilities, cost cutting etc. That was really interesting, thanks everyone.


 JimOnMars wrote:
A strike on Guam would be about the dumbest thing he could do. It would give Trump an excuse. Is this guy actually suicidal?


Kim doesn't act as he pleases, when he pleases. He is running a large government that is part dictatorship, part mafia organisation. In order to remain in control he needs to make sure that there is always lots of money for the people beneath him, and that he is strong and shouldn't be fethed with. Either of those things slow and his position becomes weaker. Both of them come apart and the guy is toast.

Kim meekly accepting the new sanctions costs the generals and powerplayers money, and shows Kim to be weak. So he can't do that.

He also knows that actually starting hostile action will get him and his country wiped from the face of the Earth. So instead we get all this bluff and bluster, the nukes are a key part of this as they show strength and can be used to extort concessions from the West.

The problem is that escalating bluff and bluster can get out of hand very quickly. This isn't an issue unique to Kim, nor does it require him or anyone else to be irrational. It's a product of circumstances, of putting people in to a game that can quickly escalate to a point no-one wants, but that no-one can get out of.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/09 05:13:59


Post by: Grey Templar


For once I don't agree with McCain. I think Trump is fully capable of acting if North Korea does something. If anything, he'd be incapable of doing nothing. Not that that's a good thing... We might have a case of twitchy trigger fingers on both sides.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/09 06:56:02


Post by: Bran Dawri


 jhe90 wrote:

Cheyanne mountain is clad in a mile of granite fething mountain. Back up everything. And already built and solid as hell and alot cheaper than a new facility.
Gotta face palm. I ain't military bit even I can see that positioning hardened backups, away from key cities, and targets. Its proof vs everything from nukes tp a bad storm, or nation wide power issues as own back ups. This is a good idea.

Cannot be even dented by terror attack and capable of furfilling mission no matter what be in war, terror, extreme weather, or any other Emergancy from zombies to volcanic eruption situation. 100% reliable command and control facilities.

This and other facilities ensure that the US remains in functional command no matter what happens.
They cannot be attacked easily, cannot be damaged by floods, hurricanes, or other events easily at all that would easily disable a regular even reinforced structure. There likely in sesimicaly stable zones or too reinforced to care, so qauke proof.

They can have a super storm going over and remain in operation, doing there job or even coordinating rescue efforts.
Very short sighted. There value is not just end of the world usage.


Not to mention a wormhole portal to the stars in its cellar.

...

Sorry. Couldn't resist. I'll let myself out now.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/09 07:50:07


Post by: Kilkrazy


North Korea is just blowing off steam for internal political reasons.

They probably don't have even one good quality missile yet. They certainly don't have enough missiles to make a real attack on the USA or a regional ally anything more than a suicidal move.

Trump ought to keep his mouth shut. He's going to look weak when NK continues with their rhetoric and the USA does nothing. If the USA does something military, though, Trump will look like a lunatic warmonger.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/09 09:03:55


Post by: antonylex


 djones520 wrote:
Status quo.

China doesn't want North Korea. They have a big enough issue as it is facing their welfare implosion in the next 10 years.

South Korea doesn't want to reintegrate. It will collapse their economy, bringing in millions of illiterate subsistence farmers.

None of us want that war, because the death toll would be horrendous. Millions dead in days.

Keep things as they are. It bloody sucks, but the option is the best of a bag of gakky options.


I agree, we don't want that war.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/09 09:06:06


Post by: jhe90


 antonylex wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
Status quo.

China doesn't want North Korea. They have a big enough issue as it is facing their welfare implosion in the next 10 years.

South Korea doesn't want to reintegrate. It will collapse their economy, bringing in millions of illiterate subsistence farmers.

None of us want that war, because the death toll would be horrendous. Millions dead in days.

Keep things as they are. It bloody sucks, but the option is the best of a bag of gakky options.


I agree, we don't want that war.


That would be a bloody, bloody war.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/09 09:12:31


Post by: sebster


 Grey Templar wrote:
For once I don't agree with McCain. I think Trump is fully capable of acting if North Korea does something. If anything, he'd be incapable of doing nothing. Not that that's a good thing... We might have a case of twitchy trigger fingers on both sides.


McCain wasn't questioning whether Trump was ready to do something. He was talking about having an actual operation lined up both militarily and politically. Consider the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Special ops moved in to Iraq in July 2002. Bush began to build the international case in September 2002. The domestic case started in October with Bush pushing the Iraq Resolution through congress, and then beginning a domestic campaign to win support for the war. The US moving large number of new troops in to the region in January and February 2003. 9 months after military troops were first deployed, 6 months after political campaigning started, 2 months after they deployed conventional troops to the region, only then did the US begin the invasion proper.

Compare that to Trump and North Korea. A couple of months ago, after a NK missile launch, the Trump admin announced a fleet was steaming in to the region, only for it to be later discovered that no such order had been given, the fleet was actually heading away from NK to Australia to take part in training exercises that had been planned months in advance.

There are a lot plans for open war against NK among the general staff of the US military. But those are military plans only and they still need prepping in order to ensure all necessary elements are in region at the same time. Beyond that it is up to the administration to secure a lot of political elements, securing Japanese and SK airfields for operations, calming China about the operation (which would likely need strong NATO efforts), securing domestic support for the subsequent peacekeeping operation, those things need months of planning and work to make sure they're done well.

None of that has even been discussed, let alone started to be planned for.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/09 09:28:18


Post by: Dreadclaw69


 Kilkrazy wrote:
North Korea is just blowing off steam for internal political reasons.

They probably don't have even one good quality missile yet. They certainly don't have enough missiles to make a real attack on the USA or a regional ally anything more than a suicidal move.

Trump ought to keep his mouth shut. He's going to look weak when NK continues with their rhetoric and the USA does nothing. If the USA does something military, though, Trump will look like a lunatic warmonger.

As long as North Korea doesn't cross that red line


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/09 09:37:06


Post by: Witzkatz


Has there been any attempt at an objective study or analysis into how indoctrinated the NK population actually is? Everyone knows the horror stories of kids being born in labor camps ratting out their own parents to the guards for cursing Great Leader under their breath, but that's more anecdotal evidence than anything else. I'm asking because the big question on how bad EXACTLY any type of war with NK would turn out to be depends highly on the beliefs and motivation of NK's populace. If they are mostly downtrodden, know how much their conditions suck compared to China and SK next door via black market relations and so forth, there might be some hope that the NK army would fold, give up or be at least disorganized with little to no willingly given help from their populace. However, if NK actually managed to so completely brainwash these poor people that they will fight any opponent with unquestioning fury and desperation, then this would turn out to be a bigger crisis than anything the Middle East has seen so far, I'd think.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/09 11:00:05


Post by: Herzlos


 JimOnMars wrote:
A strike on Guam would be about the dumbest thing he could do. It would give Trump an excuse. Is this guy actually suicidal?


Not suicidal, but at the head of an unstable regime. He can only keep his position by trying to punch above his weight and make the notion of attacking NK too dangerous.

So we're stuck with 2 unstable idiots who are unable to back down, sounding off about destroying each other. I still think it'll come to nothing but we're going to have some hurt egos in Washington when Trump is forced to back down (because the US wants the war a lot less than NK does), and Kim will be validated in his approach.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Witzkatz wrote:
Has there been any attempt at an objective study or analysis into how indoctrinated the NK population actually is? Everyone knows the horror stories of kids being born in labor camps ratting out their own parents to the guards for cursing Great Leader under their breath, but that's more anecdotal evidence than anything else. I'm asking because the big question on how bad EXACTLY any type of war with NK would turn out to be depends highly on the beliefs and motivation of NK's populace. If they are mostly downtrodden, know how much their conditions suck compared to China and SK next door via black market relations and so forth, there might be some hope that the NK army would fold, give up or be at least disorganized with little to no willingly given help from their populace. However, if NK actually managed to so completely brainwash these poor people that they will fight any opponent with unquestioning fury and desperation, then this would turn out to be a bigger crisis than anything the Middle East has seen so far, I'd think.


I don't think that's really the issue; they've been told they are at war with the US for decades, and presumably a lot of them have no interest in taking part, so will defect pretty easily. Even if they don't, they'll get steamrollered by any competent invasion, which is likely to be over in a few days.

There are 2 main issues with a war.

1. NK will destroy a lot of SK in the initial attack, and the more or less complete eradication of Seoul. This is the main threat, and there's no way to avoid it.
2. After the war is over, you're going to have a suddenly liberated population of indoctrinated and illiteral farmers that need to be resettled or taken care of. You'll have serious issues integrating them into any surrounding cultures, and they're as likely to feel oppressed by a US peacekeeping force (regarded as the enemy) as they would under an NK leadership. It'd take maybe a generation of work to bring the population back into the modern world.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/09 17:36:48


Post by: jhe90


Herzlos wrote:
 JimOnMars wrote:
A strike on Guam would be about the dumbest thing he could do. It would give Trump an excuse. Is this guy actually suicidal?


Not suicidal, but at the head of an unstable regime. He can only keep his position by trying to punch above his weight and make the notion of attacking NK too dangerous.

So we're stuck with 2 unstable idiots who are unable to back down, sounding off about destroying each other. I still think it'll come to nothing but we're going to have some hurt egos in Washington when Trump is forced to back down (because the US wants the war a lot less than NK does), and Kim will be validated in his approach.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Witzkatz wrote:
Has there been any attempt at an objective study or analysis into how indoctrinated the NK population actually is? Everyone knows the horror stories of kids being born in labor camps ratting out their own parents to the guards for cursing Great Leader under their breath, but that's more anecdotal evidence than anything else. I'm asking because the big question on how bad EXACTLY any type of war with NK would turn out to be depends highly on the beliefs and motivation of NK's populace. If they are mostly downtrodden, know how much their conditions suck compared to China and SK next door via black market relations and so forth, there might be some hope that the NK army would fold, give up or be at least disorganized with little to no willingly given help from their populace. However, if NK actually managed to so completely brainwash these poor people that they will fight any opponent with unquestioning fury and desperation, then this would turn out to be a bigger crisis than anything the Middle East has seen so far, I'd think.


I don't think that's really the issue; they've been told they are at war with the US for decades, and presumably a lot of them have no interest in taking part, so will defect pretty easily. Even if they don't, they'll get steamrollered by any competent invasion, which is likely to be over in a few days.

There are 2 main issues with a war.

1. NK will destroy a lot of SK in the initial attack, and the more or less complete eradication of Seoul. This is the main threat, and there's no way to avoid it.
2. After the war is over, you're going to have a suddenly liberated population of indoctrinated and illiteral farmers that need to be resettled or taken care of. You'll have serious issues integrating them into any surrounding cultures, and they're as likely to feel oppressed by a US peacekeeping force (regarded as the enemy) as they would under an NK leadership. It'd take maybe a generation of work to bring the population back into the modern world.


A strike on Gaum would be suicide.
Say you take out one base, the combined battle fleets and other bases go to red alert and immediately start activating Emergancy planning, arming , and readying counter strike missions.

The US side forced begin mobilising and moving troops and weapons quickly East.
Easily able to ferry 10,000 men via air daily, and thousands of marines via sea.

At same time the US battle fleets, carriers and sea borne elements move at full speed to the peninsula.

They would soon find a waking giant can wake up.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/09 17:44:21


Post by: Spinner


I don't think anyone's disputing that North Korea wouldn't get seriously wrecked in an actual full-scale conflict; what everyone's worried about is Fat Man and Little Boy (but which is which?) trash-talking and saber-rattling each other into positions that neither side feels it can back down from.

And then a whole hell of a lot of people die.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/09 18:13:24


Post by: gorgon


 Witzkatz wrote:
Has there been any attempt at an objective study or analysis into how indoctrinated the NK population actually is? Everyone knows the horror stories of kids being born in labor camps ratting out their own parents to the guards for cursing Great Leader under their breath, but that's more anecdotal evidence than anything else. I'm asking because the big question on how bad EXACTLY any type of war with NK would turn out to be depends highly on the beliefs and motivation of NK's populace. If they are mostly downtrodden, know how much their conditions suck compared to China and SK next door via black market relations and so forth, there might be some hope that the NK army would fold, give up or be at least disorganized with little to no willingly given help from their populace. However, if NK actually managed to so completely brainwash these poor people that they will fight any opponent with unquestioning fury and desperation, then this would turn out to be a bigger crisis than anything the Middle East has seen so far, I'd think.


As someone said, that's not really the issue.

Regarding indoctrination though, it's a fact that there are NK citizens who want to leave and get smuggled out. That indicates some awareness that their situation stinks. It's likely that there are those that would cheer the fall of the Kim regime, those who would defend it to the end, and those (probably the majority) who would kinda shrug and go with the flow.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/09 18:18:26


Post by: Witzkatz


 gorgon wrote:
 Witzkatz wrote:
Has there been any attempt at an objective study or analysis into how indoctrinated the NK population actually is? Everyone knows the horror stories of kids being born in labor camps ratting out their own parents to the guards for cursing Great Leader under their breath, but that's more anecdotal evidence than anything else. I'm asking because the big question on how bad EXACTLY any type of war with NK would turn out to be depends highly on the beliefs and motivation of NK's populace. If they are mostly downtrodden, know how much their conditions suck compared to China and SK next door via black market relations and so forth, there might be some hope that the NK army would fold, give up or be at least disorganized with little to no willingly given help from their populace. However, if NK actually managed to so completely brainwash these poor people that they will fight any opponent with unquestioning fury and desperation, then this would turn out to be a bigger crisis than anything the Middle East has seen so far, I'd think.


As someone said, that's not really the issue.

Regarding indoctrination though, it's a fact that there are NK citizens who want to leave and get smuggled out. That indicates some awareness that their situation stinks. It's likely that there are those that would cheer the fall of the Kim regime, those who would defend it to the end, and those (probably the majority) who would kinda shrug and go with the flow.


Not really the issue in the main war, but a hell of an issue in the aftermath. If some North Koreans want to fight a guerilla war on their own turf, this will turn into another Afghanistan.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/09 19:09:21


Post by: Easy E


Can someone explain to me why M.A.D. doesn't work in this case like it did with the USSR, India, Pakistan, etc,?


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/09 19:17:10


Post by: Kilkrazy


In what way is it not working? North Korea hasn't attacked the USA. I can't see they ever will.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/09 19:26:04


Post by: gorgon


 Witzkatz wrote:
 gorgon wrote:
 Witzkatz wrote:
Has there been any attempt at an objective study or analysis into how indoctrinated the NK population actually is? Everyone knows the horror stories of kids being born in labor camps ratting out their own parents to the guards for cursing Great Leader under their breath, but that's more anecdotal evidence than anything else. I'm asking because the big question on how bad EXACTLY any type of war with NK would turn out to be depends highly on the beliefs and motivation of NK's populace. If they are mostly downtrodden, know how much their conditions suck compared to China and SK next door via black market relations and so forth, there might be some hope that the NK army would fold, give up or be at least disorganized with little to no willingly given help from their populace. However, if NK actually managed to so completely brainwash these poor people that they will fight any opponent with unquestioning fury and desperation, then this would turn out to be a bigger crisis than anything the Middle East has seen so far, I'd think.


As someone said, that's not really the issue.

Regarding indoctrination though, it's a fact that there are NK citizens who want to leave and get smuggled out. That indicates some awareness that their situation stinks. It's likely that there are those that would cheer the fall of the Kim regime, those who would defend it to the end, and those (probably the majority) who would kinda shrug and go with the flow.


Not really the issue in the main war, but a hell of an issue in the aftermath. If some North Koreans want to fight a guerilla war on their own turf, this will turn into another Afghanistan.


But your example of Afghanistan involves completely different dynamics, right? Tribal politics, religious movements, foreign terrorists, etc....all of which shouldn't be an issue in NK. And what Afghanistan had before didn't resemble the Kim regime. Afghanistan is what it is because of its own reasons, and NK will be what it is for its own reasons.

It's probably hard to know exactly what we'd have if we opened up the North Korean can of worms, but I think it stands to reason you'll have those who benefited under the regime and will remain loyal to it, and those who didn't and won't be sad to see it go.

Edit: The influence of the Chinese is another wild card factor here.




What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/09 20:59:06


Post by: Herzlos


 Kilkrazy wrote:
In what way is it not working? North Korea hasn't attacked the USA. I can't see they ever will.


Flip it round. From Kims POV the only reason the US hasn't invaded them is because of the threats and posturing, like what happened to Iraq after it turned out Saddam was bluffing.

It's M.A.D. in action.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/09 22:06:44


Post by: Kilkrazy


NK isn't threatening and posturing because it actually has got nuclear weapons.

It's exactly what I said years ago, and now it has come true.

NK noted that the USA invaded Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya (by proxy) and concluded that the way to avoid invasion was to actually have WMDs for real.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/09 22:11:35


Post by: Frazzled


 Easy E wrote:
Can someone explain to me why M.A.D. doesn't work in this case like it did with the USSR, India, Pakistan, etc,?
that's a brilliant question.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/09 22:18:29


Post by: Dreadclaw69


 Easy E wrote:
Can someone explain to me why M.A.D. doesn't work in this case like it did with the USSR, India, Pakistan, etc,?

Because those countries had a credible nuclear program and the means to effectively project their power. All things North Korea lacks


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/09 22:24:07


Post by: jhe90


 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
 Easy E wrote:
Can someone explain to me why M.A.D. doesn't work in this case like it did with the USSR, India, Pakistan, etc,?

Because those countries had a credible nuclear program and the means to effectively project their power. All things North Korea lacks


Those counties are also less crazy than NK, with a far less military reliant economy, and nigh on what 50% defense spending. Granted they make that broard term out there.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/10 05:23:05


Post by: sebster


 Easy E wrote:
Can someone explain to me why M.A.D. doesn't work in this case like it did with the USSR, India, Pakistan, etc,?


MAD only works when leaders have some leeway to back down, to de-escalate. If a US president backs down, or even a Russian or Pakistani president, they don't get killed. They'll lose face, lose political power, and get booted from office. Then they retire to the quiet life. They may not like being away from the center of power but it's preferable to starting a nuclear war that will end up get themselves killed, along with their loved ones and hundreds of millions of other people.

That isn't true for Kim. If he loses his appearance of strength, they don't just boot him from office, they kill him. And they'll kill or imprison his family, including his infant daughter. It is 'win or die' for Kim. So he simply cannot back down, show weakness.

It is interesting to look back at Kruschev, his back down over the Cuban Missile Crisis led pretty directly to his removal from power. But it wasn't a lethal or even an overtly military process. Breznhev took pains to ensure there was no appearance of a coup, and Kruschev himself offered little resistance. He was allowed to give a pretend retirement speach, then given a pension and his old house. Quite civil really (although USSR being what it was he was moved in to a smaller home and given a reduced pension in latter years). What's interesting is that it had been barely more than a decade since Stalin had passed, when, like North Korea today, where falling out of favour with power was a death sentence - a backdown like Kruschev's would have been much more difficult.

MAD only became genuine once Russia transitioned to a fairly normal kind of authoritarian state, is what I'm saying. Even then it requires leaders who are willing to face the political costs of de-escalation, rather than hope the politicians on the other side blink first.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/10 08:08:40


Post by: Herzlos


 sebster wrote:

That isn't true for Kim. If he loses his appearance of strength, they don't just boot him from office, they kill him. And they'll kill or imprison his family, including his infant daughter. It is 'win or die' for Kim. So he simply cannot back down, show weakness.


And even if he doesn't get booted from office and killed, backing down runs a serious risk of inviting an invasion (in his view). He absolutely has no leeway for showing weakness.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/10 09:32:02


Post by: ulgurstasta


I'm not sure I buy that, haven't NK backed away from dozens of threats over the years?

MAD seems to be working to me so far


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/10 14:31:10


Post by: KTG17


 jhe90 wrote:
Cheyanne mountain is clad in a mile of granite fething mountain. Back up everything. And already built and solid as hell and alot cheaper than a new facility.
Gotta face palm. I ain't military bit even I can see that positioning hardened backups, away from key cities, and targets. Its proof vs everything from nukes tp a bad storm, or nation wide power issues as own back ups. This is a good idea.

Cannot be even dented by terror attack and capable of furfilling mission no matter what be in war, terror, extreme weather, or any other Emergancy from zombies to volcanic eruption situation. 100% reliable command and control facilities.

This and other facilities ensure that the US remains in functional command no matter what happens.
They cannot be attacked easily, cannot be damaged by floods, hurricanes, or other events easily at all that would easily disable a regular even reinforced structure. There likely in sesimicaly stable zones or too reinforced to care, so qauke proof.

They can have a super storm going over and remain in operation, doing there job or even coordinating rescue efforts.
Very short sighted. There value is not just end of the world usage.


I had a co-worker who worked in Cheyenne Mountain back in its hay-day, and he said back when it was originally conceived it was a decent bunker, but he said with today weapons, and I use his words here, "would turn the whole mountain into glass."

So I wouldn't expect it to last long.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/10 14:45:42


Post by: Co'tor Shas


But we aren't talking about Russia's weapons, but NK's, who can barely get rockets off the ground without exploding


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/10 15:03:55


Post by: sebster


 ulgurstasta wrote:
I'm not sure I buy that, haven't NK backed away from dozens of threats over the years?

MAD seems to be working to me so far


Mutually Assured Destruction. NK has had no ability to assure the destruction of the US. There's been no MAD.

What we've seen so far has been NK holding SK and at times their own people to ransom - you better give us food & energy or we might do something real stupid to all these people here.

Now the game is moving somewhat closer to MAD. Not mutually assured of course, but with some threat of heavy losses to the US. That means future stand offs won't just be about the US safe guarding SK and Japan, but also themselves. It's a very different game.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/10 15:28:16


Post by: Kilkrazy


The factor to consider, which Sebster mentioned a few posts above, is that Kim is working in a system that will kill him if he plays it wrong.

He's a different man to his father and grandfather, he's new and not 100% secure, and that changes the dynamics he works with and against.

Thus, it's harder to predict what the current Kim will do, based on what a previous Kim did 20 or 35 or 50 years ago.

Personally I believe Kim has driven for working nukes because he saw what happened to Iraq and Libya, who were persuaded to give up their WMDs and then got invaded and the rulers were deposed and killed.

Kim therefore believes that with a demonstrable nuclear capability he can prevent a regime change by the western allies. Hwoever he is not actually a maniac, and he must know that if he nuked a real target such as Seoul, Guam, or Anchorage, it would set off a war that would destroy him. So he's not going to do it.

IDK what the idea is of threatening a trial launch into the sea near Guam but outside the territorial limit. Maybe this won't actually be done. If it is done, in my view it makes Trump's position very difficult. He has already threatened severe retaliation to threats, but he won't have a very supportable casus belli.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/10 15:41:26


Post by: Ketara


If I were in Trump's shoes, I'd make a simple announcement. 'What you do to us, we will do back precisely four times harder'. And then follow through.

So if they launch five missiles at the US base on Guam? Throw twenty cruise missiles into North Korea. Keep the rhetoric low, but adhere to precisely measured retaliation. If Kim wants to throw his toys out of the cot, let him. But let it be very apparent what the consequences are.

And I mean, if a few of those cruise missiles just happened to land on Kim's favourite house, hot dog stand, and airfield, so much the better....


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/10 15:42:43


Post by: Rosebuddy


 jhe90 wrote:

Those counties are also less crazy than NK, with a far less military reliant economy, and nigh on what 50% defense spending. Granted they make that broard term out there.


North Korea is a lot more rational than the US, actually. The problem with them being rational, however, is that they have very few options and very stupid enemies.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/10 15:48:58


Post by: Kilkrazy


 Ketara wrote:
If I were in Trump's shoes, I'd make a simple announcement. 'What you do to us, we will do back precisely four times harder'. And then follow through.

So if they launch five missiles at the US base on Guam? Throw twenty cruise missiles into North Korea. Keep the rhetoric low, but adhere to precisely measured retaliation. If Kim wants to throw his toys out of the cot, let him. But let it be very apparent what the consequences are.

And I mean, if a few of those cruise missiles just happened to land on Kim's favourite house, hot dog stand, and airfield, so much the better....


Yes. I think would be the best course of action. The difficulties I see are (1) if NK sends a pattern of 5 missiles at a patch of sea 30 miles away from Guam, then sending 20 missiles at dry land targets is a double escalation. (Though it's pointless to fire them into the Sea of Japan or something.) (2) Trump doesn't seem like the kind of guy who likes to make those kind of measured responses. He's a high-flown threatoric person.

Personally I would support a warning and actual launch of a proportional missile response at land targets because NK are continuously violating UN resolutions. But I would try and square it with allies and the Chinese first.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/10 16:06:21


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


 Kilkrazy wrote:
 Ketara wrote:
If I were in Trump's shoes, I'd make a simple announcement. 'What you do to us, we will do back precisely four times harder'. And then follow through.

So if they launch five missiles at the US base on Guam? Throw twenty cruise missiles into North Korea. Keep the rhetoric low, but adhere to precisely measured retaliation. If Kim wants to throw his toys out of the cot, let him. But let it be very apparent what the consequences are.

And I mean, if a few of those cruise missiles just happened to land on Kim's favourite house, hot dog stand, and airfield, so much the better....


Yes. I think would be the best course of action. The difficulties I see are (1) if NK sends a pattern of 5 missiles at a patch of sea 30 miles away from Guam, then sending 20 missiles at dry land targets is a double escalation. (Though it's pointless to fire them into the Sea of Japan or something.) (2) Trump doesn't seem like the kind of guy who likes to make those kind of measured responses. He's a high-flown threatoric person.

Personally I would support a warning and actual launch of a proportional missile response at land targets because NK are continuously violating UN resolutions. But I would try and square it with allies and the Chinese first.


Can't you just envelop North Korea with anti-missile batteries and shoot down every single missile they launch? No need to escalate matters and waste money by shooting back at empty targets close to NK territory, just humiliate them and expose how technologically outmatched they are.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/10 16:10:27


Post by: Witzkatz


While theoretically possible, I think the presence of US missile defense system so close to China would upset a few important Chinese people. And the other way around, Chinese anti-missile batteries being drawn closer to SK and its US allies might cause some additional tensions.

Apart from that, there's rumours about NK tunnels leading deep into SK territory - if they decide to sneak atomic bombs in there, that's something missile defense couldn't deal with (Just pointing out that there's no 100% way of making sure NK doesn't do something stupid in a nuclear way)


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/10 16:13:20


Post by: Vaktathi


If anti missile batteries were a viable solution, that would be the obvious choice. As is, they are extremely expensive, and anything capable of engaging an ICBM or intermediate range missile has a rather uninspiring track record of success in testing, and there are nowhere near enough available. China would also have extreme issues with this.

Ultimately the question is going to come down to who does the first stupid thing, and what the feelings of the South Korean government are. The US is not going to make a preemptive move if Seoul feels its going to be obliterated inside of half an hour.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/10 16:15:07


Post by: feeder


In addition to the SK citizens, there's also millions of NK citizens who are living with the direct consequences of Cold War paranoia gone hot.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/10 16:19:10


Post by: Herzlos


There's a real risk that if they see militarization near the borders and feel an attack is imminent, then they are likely to let rip with the retaliation strike. Can you protect the entire of the SK border from any missiles passing it before they launch?

Most likely the safest thing to do is pay someone to overthrow the current Kim


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/10 16:20:13


Post by: Kilkrazy


The US anti-missile system isn't as good as it wants to be. It's probably better to concentrate defensive batteries around important targets. (The reliability of NK missiles seems to be fairly low.)

Israel has a pretty impressive system.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/10 16:27:56


Post by: Grey Templar


 sebster wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
For once I don't agree with McCain. I think Trump is fully capable of acting if North Korea does something. If anything, he'd be incapable of doing nothing. Not that that's a good thing... We might have a case of twitchy trigger fingers on both sides.


McCain wasn't questioning whether Trump was ready to do something. He was talking about having an actual operation lined up both militarily and politically.


While I agree he personally has zero actual plans, in this instance that is probably not a problem. Given that we are actually still at war with North Korea, I'm sure the Pentagon has lots of plans on standby if and when the war gets resumed. Plans which have been constantly refined and updated since 1953.

Unlike Iraq which was probably largely a scratch built plan, there is almost certainly an existing playbook on North Korea. So for once all Trump would have to do is say "Go get em!".


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/10 16:51:54


Post by: Daemonhost Cherubael


I am no strategist with foreign policy, but I don't think there is a perfect solution.
If I had to approach this I would seek out bright minds like Henry Kissinger or other well known diplomats and see what they would have to say. But for the sake of this discussion here is my fill:

Even if we do liberate these people, what's going to stop the populace from forming bands of civilian militias?
Keep in mind, these people have been indoctrinated throughout their entire lives, and I know this is going to sound very appalling to some of you but...
Spoiler:
Don't you think that these people are just a lost cause? Think about how long they've been isolated from western civilization and all they know is to spite us.


Another thing that worries me is a land invasion into South Korea and the possibility of them mobilizing into Seoul. I have a lot of Korean friends at my university that have family there and are preparing to go back for their mandatory military service.
As horrific as the situation is, I would rather have us deal with it now while we still have the chance. If we just sit and watch them turn into a true nuclear power what if the unthinkable actually does happen because of our negligence?




What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/10 17:17:24


Post by: feeder


 Daemonhost Cherubael wrote:
I am no strategist with foreign policy, but I don't think there is no perfect solution.
If I had to approach this I would seek out bright minds like Henry Kissinger or other well known diplomats and see what they would have to say. But for the sake of this discussion here is my fill:

Even if we do liberate these people, what's going to stop the populace from forming bands of civilian militias?
Keep in mind, these people have been indoctrinated throughout their entire lives, and I know this is going to sound very appalling to some of you but...
Spoiler:
Don't you think that these people are just a lost cause? Think about how long they've been isolated from western civilization and all they know is to spite us.


Another thing that worries me is a land invasion into South Korea and the possibility of them mobilizing into Seoul. I have a lot of Korean friends at my university that have family there and are preparing to go back for their mandatory military service.
As horrific as the situation is, I would rather have us deal with it now while we still have the chance. If we just sit and watch them turn into a true nuclear power what if the unthinkable actually does happen because of our negligence?




If you are concerned that the NK civilians will form endless waves of suicide troops, dying endlessly for the ideals of their Dear Leader, consider Japan post-WW2. Their population was genuinely indoctrinated for centuries that their Emperor was a god. Postwar Japan was a peaceful place and it didn't take long to transition to a world power.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/10 17:28:48


Post by: jhe90


 feeder wrote:
 Daemonhost Cherubael wrote:
I am no strategist with foreign policy, but I don't think there is no perfect solution.
If I had to approach this I would seek out bright minds like Henry Kissinger or other well known diplomats and see what they would have to say. But for the sake of this discussion here is my fill:

Even if we do liberate these people, what's going to stop the populace from forming bands of civilian militias?
Keep in mind, these people have been indoctrinated throughout their entire lives, and I know this is going to sound very appalling to some of you but...
Spoiler:
Don't you think that these people are just a lost cause? Think about how long they've been isolated from western civilization and all they know is to spite us.


Another thing that worries me is a land invasion into South Korea and the possibility of them mobilizing into Seoul. I have a lot of Korean friends at my university that have family there and are preparing to go back for their mandatory military service.
As horrific as the situation is, I would rather have us deal with it now while we still have the chance. If we just sit and watch them turn into a true nuclear power what if the unthinkable actually does happen because of our negligence?




If you are concerned that the NK civilians will form endless waves of suicide troops, dying endlessly for the ideals of their Dear Leader, consider Japan post-WW2. Their population was genuinely indoctrinated for centuries that their Emperor was a god. Postwar Japan was a peaceful place and it didn't take long to transition to a world power.


There emperor and god did confirm the surrender though.
So the document was maybe seen as more "valid"


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/10 17:49:12


Post by: Spinner


 Daemonhost Cherubael wrote:

Even if we do liberate these people, what's going to stop the populace from forming bands of civilian militias?
Keep in mind, these people have been indoctrinated throughout their entire lives, and I know this is going to sound very appalling to some of you but...
Spoiler:
Don't you think that these people are just a lost cause? Think about how long they've been isolated from western civilization and all they know is to spite us.




Let's just get it out in the open. What exactly are you suggesting here?


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/10 17:50:08


Post by: Rosebuddy


 Daemonhost Cherubael wrote:
I am no strategist with foreign policy, but I don't think there is no perfect solution.
If I had to approach this I would seek out bright minds like Henry Kissinger or other well known diplomats and see what they would have to say. But for the sake of this discussion here is my fill:

Even if we do liberate these people, what's going to stop the populace from forming bands of civilian militias?
Keep in mind, these people have been indoctrinated throughout their entire lives, and I know this is going to sound very appalling to some of you but...
Spoiler:
Don't you think that these people are just a lost cause? Think about how long they've been isolated from western civilization and all they know is to spite us.


Another thing that worries me is a land invasion into South Korea and the possibility of them mobilizing into Seoul. I have a lot of Korean friends at my university that have family there and are preparing to go back for their mandatory military service.
As horrific as the situation is, I would rather have us deal with it now while we still have the chance. If we just sit and watch them turn into a true nuclear power what if the unthinkable actually does happen because of our negligence?




Kissinger is a war criminal and can't travel freely because he'll risk being arrested.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/10 17:50:30


Post by: feeder


 jhe90 wrote:


There emperor and god did confirm the surrender though.
So the document was maybe seen as more "valid"


That's true. Push comes to shove, it shouldn't be too hard to convince Dear Leader to do the same though. I doubt he believes his own hype.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/10 18:18:34


Post by: Vaktathi


The idea of a long guerilla war in NK is probably unrealistic. Yes, the population lives in an echo chamber of propaganda, but it's all tied into a cult of personality, with weirdly specific chatacteristsics, that most of them also realize is bunk on some level. If the leader fails to maintain power, the cause is broken, nobody is going to pick that flag up, espcially with SK there that would be providing massive assistance and investment.

Criminal gangs of hungry and desperate soldiers, former military officers turning to organized crimes, etc (fall of the Warsaw Pact style) is what I would be worried about far more than some sort of organized Juche guerilla movement in the vein of Al Qaeda or ISIS or even the Viet Cong. The conditions are far different.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/10 18:27:39


Post by: feeder


 Vaktathi wrote:
The idea of a long guerilla war in NK is probably unrealistic. Yes, the population lives in an echo chamber of propaganda, but it's all tied into a cult of personality, with weirdly specific chatacteristsics, that most of them also realize is bunk on some level. If the leader fails to maintain power, the cause is broken, nobody is going to pick that flag up, espcially with SK there that would be providing massive assistance and investment.

Criminal gangs of hungry and desperate soldiers, former military officers turning to organized crimes, etc (fall of the Warsaw Pact style) is what I would be worried about far more than some sort of organized Juche guerilla movement in the vein of Al Qaeda or ISIS or even the Viet Cong. The conditions are far different.


Definitely. The situation calls for a Marshall Plan solution.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/10 18:36:11


Post by: Co'tor Shas


http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/08/10/japan-ready-to-protect-guam-defense-minister-says.html

Looks like Japan wants to get involved. Can't say I'm surprised (or against it ).


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/10 18:40:34


Post by: whembly


 feeder wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
The idea of a long guerilla war in NK is probably unrealistic. Yes, the population lives in an echo chamber of propaganda, but it's all tied into a cult of personality, with weirdly specific chatacteristsics, that most of them also realize is bunk on some level. If the leader fails to maintain power, the cause is broken, nobody is going to pick that flag up, espcially with SK there that would be providing massive assistance and investment.

Criminal gangs of hungry and desperate soldiers, former military officers turning to organized crimes, etc (fall of the Warsaw Pact style) is what I would be worried about far more than some sort of organized Juche guerilla movement in the vein of Al Qaeda or ISIS or even the Viet Cong. The conditions are far different.


Definitely. The situation calls for a Marshall Plan solution.

That'd be something I'd be onboard... but, the cost of what we've seen in Iraq/Afganistan would pale in comparison to the Koreas...

Also... any see this?
https://twitter.com/passantino/status/895043437367410688

“the air pirates of Guam”

Please, oh please someone confirm that some squaddies named themselves as this!


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/10 19:16:39


Post by: Kilkrazy


Prime Minister Abe is a right-wing nationalist with a continuing programme of trying to change the Japanese constitution to get the JSDF forces renamed as armies, navies, and so on, and allow them to be used for aggressive operations.

This is unpopular with a wide range of the voting public.

That said, the Japanese dislike and are worried about North Korea (doubly so because of actually having taken two nuclear strikes at the end of WW2.) Consequently, every time Kim shoots a missile over Japan, he adds a few grains of sand to the side of the scales that leads to the renewal of Japanese militarism.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/10 19:23:23


Post by: Co'tor Shas


I'm certainly not opposed to Japanese rearmament (they are one of our closest allies), but only if that Japanese people push for it.