What to do with North Korea...

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**feeder**

Kilkrazy wrote:
The classic blunder is to get involved in a land war in Asia.

At least we aren't going against a Sicilian when death is on the line....

**jhe90**

feeder wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
The classic blunder is to get involved in a land war in Asia.

At least we aren't going against a Sicilian when death is on the line....

Or invading Russia in the winter.

**Disciple of Fate**

jhe90 wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
kronk wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
kronk wrote:
What happens IF Mr. Kim puts a nuke on one of his rockets and lobs it at Japan or California?

Retaliate with nukes? Invade? Airstrikes on the border and take out as many mortars as possible?

Well if Kim is that stupid NK is done for. If it doesn't involve nuking them back it certainly means the end of the NK state by invasion.

Agreed, but if they have the mortars and rockets to level Seoul as has been projected? Are we still doing it? Or are all gloves coming off if they send a nuke and "Sorry, South Korea. You have to take one for the team."?

I mean you have to take off the gloves when it comes to nukes being used. Letting even a single nuke through and not responding completely invalidates nukes as a deterrence to nukes. What if they send one nuke again 5 years later? Just another lonesome nuke? It might even go for South Korea the next time. Letting even a single nuke through is unacceptable. It just opens up a new realm of horrible possibilities of pushing the envelope.

If he fired a Nuke and it hit its target and nuked SK.

I'm pretty sure any agreement with China would be invalid and general allowance to open up with everything Allied forced got on NK would be open..

China can only protect them so far, and is only willing to defend against a attack initiated by another party.

There first strike would void thr terms.

The Kim family could die in a hole for all the CCP cares. What they want is NK, if an idiot in charge risks that by nuking people China won't object to his or her removal as long as a subservient NK could be preserved. If Kim starts nuking people China itself might be first in line to end it.

**BaronIveagh**

KTG17 wrote:

Time out. This is an incorrect statement. First of all, you can't judge a war on a single battle.

True.

KTG17 wrote:

The Chinese launched several major offensives that ended in failure too btw.

Not nearly to the degree of Chosin. While the various Chinese offensives ultimately failed due to logistical failures and lack of air cover, the UN was back-footed until it withdrew south of Seoul.

KTG17 wrote:

The war ended with the North Koreans out of South Korea, which is exactly what the US had gone to war to do. Don't see how ANYONE can say the US lost the war. If you want to argue that it ended in a stalemate, that's fine too. The Chinese didn't want the US in the North, but also couldn't drive them out of the South (which they certainly tried to do too), and the US wouldn't commit to expanding the war enough to now remove the Chinese from North Korea, since the original mandate was to just remove NK out of SK.

You misunderstood me. As i said, if anyone 'won' it was China (this does imply that I'm dubious if anyone can be said to have won). This is not just a military statement. China gained significant standing in world politics from this, as well as demonstrating that it could, without much modern equipment, at least equal the military might of western industrialized nations, by effectively gaining a massive amount of ground in a single effective operation.

Back to modern Korea: I'd like to remind everyone claiming that NK would surrender out of hand like Iraq that previous situations like the Sokcho submarine incident, and the Gangneung submarine infiltration incident, resulted in a lot of dead bodies and only one prisoner between both incidents.

**sebster**

Iron_Captain wrote:
China beating the US in Korea was very real, the Chinese kicked the US all the way back to the 38th Parallel, after which the US got its act together again and prevented further losses, but it was unable to re-take most of the territory it lost. The Chinese succeeded in their goal of saving North Korea. The US did not succeed in its goal to defeat North Korea (though it did succeed in its goal of saving South Korea, so the ultimate result of the war was a stalemate). The Chinese successfully frustrated US war goals while achieving their own.

What you've tried to do is define US victory as conquest of North Korea, and Chinese victory as merely restoring the border on the 38th parallel. This is another work of fantasy by you.

The US and supporting nations undertook the war on the backing of a UN resolution, which called for NK to withdraw behind the 38th parallel. It is true that once that objective was achieved, mission creep set in and the US pushed in to NK. But that's also true of China - who once they forced out the US troops continued to push and took Seoul. After this the Chinese continued to launch offensives pushing past the 38th parallel in to SK.

Trying to claim that the US sole objective was taking the whole peninsula, while the only Chinese objective was restoring NK is a ridiculous claim.

I also never claimed that the loss of trade with the US wouldn't impact China much. I have repeatedly stated that it would hurt China massively

You described it as 'a short term economic loss'. Your words. Again, we're talking about an event where the immediate impact is 150% of the GFC just from the immediate loss of trade. Then you add in flow on effects and impacts to investment, and we're looking at something more like 3 to 5 times the GFC, to which you'd then add financial system shocks. Describing that as a short term economic loss is ridiculous.

Oh dear. I don't even know how to respond to that.

Probably by actually reading what I wrote.

Anyhow, your vision of China and/or the US sending troops in to foreign territory to maintain a low intensity, attritional war is very silly.

No way. Europe likes Chinese money way better than it likes pointless US wars in which European countries have nothing to gain.

Europe likes international stability. If you're confused about this, note the sanctions that Europe is maintaining on Russia, in response to Crimea and Ukraine.

China needs European money, but Europe needs Chinese money just as much. Freezing Chinese assets will collapse European economies.

Okay, so China losing 4% of its GDP when trade with the US ends is 'a short term economic loss'. But Europe freezing Chinese investments would be economic collapse for Europe. What the hell is this?

**SlaveToDorkness**

feeder wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
The classic blunder is to get involved in a land war in Asia.

At least we aren't going against a Sicilian when death is on the line....

INCONCEIVABLE!!!!!

**Just Tony**

SlaveToDorkness wrote:
feeder wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
The classic blunder is to get involved in a land war in Asia.

At least we aren't going against a Sicilian when death is on the line....

INCONCEIVABLE!!!!!

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

**BaronIveagh**

sebster wrote:

What you've tried to do is define US victory as conquest of North Korea, and Chinese victory as merely restoring the border on the 38th parallel. This is another work of fantasy by you.

And some guy named Douglas MacArthur, who also defined victory in Korea that way.

"Our victory was complete, and our objectives within reach, when Red China intervened with numerically superior ground forces."

That does sound an awful lot like the objective was the destruction of Communist North Korea, not the restoration of the 38th Parallel.

Oh, and Iron Captain and I are agreeing on something. You may want to mark this down on your calendar.

**sebster**

BaronIveagh wrote:
And some guy named Douglas MacArthur, who also defined victory in Korea that way.

Two things;

1) MacArthur's mission creep is kind of pretty fething famous.

2) You missed the whole fething point of what I wrote. China also advanced down past the 38th, they took Seoul and attempted a lot of offensives to push even further South. So defining the US' mission as taking the whole peninsula, but China's as merely restoring the original boundary on the 38th is absurd. Either they both wanted to control of the whole peninsula and so both had to settle for less than that, or both had survival of their client states as the primary goal and they both achieved their primary goal.

**Iron_Captain**

sebster wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:
And some guy named Douglas MacArthur, who also defined victory in Korea that way.

Two things;

1) MacArthur's mission creep is kind of pretty fething famous.

2) You missed the whole fething point of what I wrote. China also advanced down past the 38th, they took Seoul and attempted a lot of offensives to push even further South. So defining the US' mission as taking the whole peninsula, but China's as merely restoring the original boundary on the 38th is absurd. Either they both wanted to control of the whole peninsula and so both had to settle for less than that, or both had survival of their client states as the primary goal and they both achieved their primary goal.

I actually have to agree with Seb here. He is right. The Chinese did attempt to advance beyond the 38th. To be fair, if you define the American wargoals as including the taking North Korea, then you also have to define the Chinese wargoals as including taking South Korea. So in the end, no matter what way you turn it, it was a stalemate.

**djones520**

Iron_Captain wrote:
sebster wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:
And some guy named Douglas MacArthur, who also defined victory in Korea that way.

Two things;

1) MacArthur's mission creep is kind of pretty fething famous.

2) You missed the whole fething point of what I wrote. China also advanced down past the 38th, they took Seoul and attempted a lot of offensives to push even further South. So defining the US' mission as taking the whole peninsula, but China's as merely restoring the original boundary on the 38th is absurd. Either they both wanted to control of the whole peninsula and so both had to settle for less than that, or both had survival of their client states as the primary goal and they both achieved their primary goal.

I actually have to agree with Seb here. He is right. The Chinese did attempt to advance beyond the 38th. To be fair, if you define the American wargoals as including the taking North Korea, then you also have to define the Chinese wargoals as including taking South Korea. So in the end, no matter what way you turn it, it was a stalemate.

Glad to see you come around finally.

**jhe90**

djones520 wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:
sebster wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:
And some guy named Douglas MacArthur, who also defined victory in Korea that way.

Two things;

1) MacArthur's mission creep is kind of pretty fething famous.

2) You missed the whole fething point of what I wrote. China also advanced down past the 38th, they took Seoul and attempted a lot of offensives to push even further South. So defining the US' mission as taking the whole peninsula, but China's as merely restoring the original boundary on the 38th is absurd. Either they both wanted to control of the whole peninsula and so both had to settle for less than that, or both had survival of their client states as the primary goal and they both achieved their primary goal.

I actually have to agree with Seb here. He is right. The Chinese did attempt to advance beyond the 38th. To be fair, if you define the American wargoals as including the taking North Korea, then you also have to define the Chinese wargoals as including taking South Korea. So in the end, no matter what way you turn it, it was a stalemate.

Glad to see you come around finally.

They tried but the terrain of Korea, Hills, valleys is ideal defensive terrain in areas. Both sides fought a bloody slog from hill to hill, only to end up where they started.

Both sides could have carried on but it would just be a endless carry on of death with no real stalemate broken.

**BaronIveagh**

sebster wrote:

1) MacArthur's mission creep is kind of pretty fething famous.

True, but your accusation against Iron Captain of making the whole idea up is disingenuous.

**sebster**

BaronIveagh wrote:
True, but your accusation against Iron Captain of making the whole idea up is disingenuous.

I didn't accuse him of making stuff up. I said his argument, in which China's absolute goal was restoring the border along the 38th parallel, while the US absolute goal must be total conquest of the peninsula, was a fantasy. It was a fantasy because both sides would have taken the whole peninsula if they could, and both sides had to settle for something less.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Iron_Captain wrote:
I actually have to agree with Seb here. He is right. The Chinese did attempt to advance beyond the 38th. To be fair, if you define the American wargoals as including the taking North Korea, then you also have to define the Chinese wargoals as including taking South Korea. So in the end, no matter what way you turn it, it was a stalemate.

Cool, credit it to you for coming around to another point of view.

**sebster**

Here in Australian an Australian citizen, born in South Korea, has just been arrested for trying to sell ballistic missile components on behalf of North Korea. North Korea runs a lot of operations like this reportedly, basically they do anything they can think of to bring in some hard currency. The weapons would have netted NK around $10m, if a genuine buyer had been located.

The Australian investigation of the man began after they were tipped off by another, as yet unknown country. More arrests are expected, but its not clear if they'll be in Australia or elsewhere.

**jhe90**

sebster wrote:
Here in Australian an Australian citizen, born in South Korea, has just been arrested for trying to sell ballistic missile components on behalf of North Korea. North Korea runs a lot of operations like this reportedly, basically they do anything they can think of to bring in some hard currency. The weapons would have netted NK around $10m, if a genuine buyer had been located.

The Australian investigation of the man began after they were tipped off by another, as yet unknown country. More arrests are expected, but its not clear if they'll be in Australia or elsewhere.

There could be arests over the whole pacific region.

**Easy E**

sebster wrote:
Here in Australian an Australian citizen, born in South Korea, has just been arrested for trying to sell ballistic missile components on behalf of North Korea. North Korea runs a lot of operations like this reportedly, basically they do anything they can think of to bring in some hard currency. The weapons would have netted NK around $10m, if a genuine buyer had been located.

The Australian investigation of the man began after they were tipped off by another, as yet unknown country. More arrests are expected, but its not clear if they'll be in Australia or elsewhere.

Is Nuke technology that far behind? Probably not.

**jhe90**

Easy E wrote:
sebster wrote:
Here in Australian an Australian citizen, born in South Korea, has just been arrested for trying to sell ballistic missile components on behalf of North Korea. North Korea runs a lot of operations like this reportedly, basically they do anything they can think of to bring in some hard currency. The weapons would have netted NK around $10m, if a genuine buyer had been located.

The Australian investigation of the man began after they were tipped off by another, as yet unknown country. More arrests are expected, but its not clear if they'll be in Australia or elsewhere.

Is Nuke technology that far behind? Probably not.

Not likely.
Or worse even finished weapons. Though being caught as one who gave terror group a nuke is basically classed as your own. And thus you pay also. Heavily.

They might. China recent sanctions and closures reportly cost them some 30% total foreign income. Add some tourist flights from US closing, and other stuff. There foreign currency income is cut severely.

China may not provide protection to them if caught selling nuke tech though. That would be a very serious regional issue.

**feeder**

White House now claiming they have proof NK was behind the "Wannacry" ransomware attack.

Genuine mafia style actions - extortion - by a nation's government. Wonderful.

**skyth**

feeder wrote:
White House now claiming they have proof NK was behind the "Wannacry" ransomware attack.

Genuine mafia style actions - extortion - by a nation's government. Wonderful.

Anything coming from the White House has serious credibility issues these days...

**nels1031**

Looks like another NorK soldier defected to South Korea.

Only like 10 million or thereabouts more to go and the NorK problem will solve itself. Solid progress!

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/20/asia/north-korea-soldier-defection-dmz/index.html

**kronk**

nels1031 wrote:
Looks like another NorK soldier defected to South Korea.

Only like 10 million or thereabouts more to go and the NorK problem will solve itself. Solid progress!

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/20/asia/north-korea-soldier-defection-dmz/index.html

Good luck to him. Hopefully any relatives he had in the country aren't punished for his desertion.

**jhe90**

kronk wrote:
nels1031 wrote:
Looks like another NorK soldier defected to South Korea.

Only like 10 million or thereabouts more to go and the NorK problem will solve itself. Solid progress!

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/20/asia/north-korea-soldier-defection-dmz/index.html

Good luck to him. Hopefully any relatives he had in the country aren't punished for his desertion.

Ans his platoon, company, or others in the barracks.

They likely get punished for his defection or failing to prevent it.

**whembly**

Whoops?
https://nypost.com/2018/01/04/north-korea-crashed-missile-into-its-own-city-during-failed-test/

North Korea crashed missile into its own city during failed test

Forget reaching the US mainland, one errant North Korean missile went rogue last year and crashed into a city not far from the capital, Pyongyang, according to a report.

A Hwasong-12 intermediate-range ballistic missile turned itself into a very-short-range rocket when it failed during a test flight on April 28, 2017, and slammed into the city of Tokchon, according to The Diplomat magazine.

The missile, which was launched from the Pukchang airfield, flew just 24 miles before taking a nosedive and striking a complex of industrial or agricultural buildings, the mag reported.

According to a US government source with knowledge of the hermit kingdom’s weapons program, the missile’s first-stage engines failed after about a minute of flight.

The location of the missile’s impact was revealed exclusively to The Diplomat, which said it corroborated the flub using commercially available satellite imagery from April and May 2017.

Although the images show that the explosion caused heavy damage in the heavily populated area, there is no way to tell if it led to casualties.

Had the missile successfully completed its test flight, it would have landed in the northern part of the Sea of Japan, near the Russian coast.

Various media outlets around the world reported about the failed test — the third involving the Hwasong-12 — at the time, but details about where the missile fell remained a mystery until now.

Fearing such a flop, North Korean despot Kim Jong Un chose the remote seaside resort town of Sinpo as the test site of the first two failed launches in April.

The reclusive regime now uses several new test sites, including Pyongyang’s Sunan Airport, which also serves as the country’s civil aviation hub and entry point for most non-Chinese visitors, according to the International Business Times.

Despite several failures, a Hwasong-12 was successfully test launched on May 14 — leading the way for the introduction of the Hwasong-14/KN20 intercontinental ballistic missile.

North Korea’s aggressive missile testing ratcheted up tensions between Pyongyang and Washington.

During a televised speech, Kim declared: “The United States can never fight a war against me and our state. It should properly know that the whole territory of the US is within the range of our nuclear strike and a nuclear button is always on the desk of my office, and this is just a reality, not a threat.”

<REDACTED> Nuke Button Envy Tweets <\REDACTED>

**feeder**

Turns out every person killed by the missile was in fact a traitor to the DRPK! Dear Leader wanted this to happen, to punish those who would even think ill of Best Korea. All praise Dear Leader, he who makes the sun rise and gets 18 holes in one!

**jhe90**

feeder wrote:
Turns out every person killed by the missile was in fact a traitor to the DRPK! Dear Leader wanted this to happen, to punish those who would even think ill of Best Korea. All praise Dear Leader, he who makes the sun rise and gets 18 holes in one!

North Korea managed to missile it self. Well that's a turn up for the books. Missiles fail from time to time. There weapons a are pretty experimental.

I guess thr missile designer has come to a bad end. Or the engineers.

**Easy E**

I am pretty sure other nations have had some bad accidents on their road to military power.

**tneva82**

Easy E wrote:
I am pretty sure other nations have had some bad accidents on their road to military power.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/20/usaf-atomic-bomb-north-carolina-1961

Assuming that's not bogus news US got preeeetty close of nuking itself

Or howabout blowing up missile on their base 1980 resulting in casualties?

**BaronIveagh**

tneva82 wrote:

Assuming that's not bogus news US got preeeetty close of nuking itself

Or howabout blowing up missile on their base 1980 resulting in casualties?

Goldsboro and Damascus were very real. (We have to watch footage about both here) However, the Damascus incident was a FAE explosion, not a nuclear one, because someone fumbled a bolt that fell and punctured a fuel line.

**Iron_Captain**

jhe90 wrote:
feeder wrote:
Turns out every person killed by the missile was in fact a traitor to the DRPK! Dear Leader wanted this to happen, to punish those who would even think ill of Best Korea. All praise Dear Leader, he who makes the sun rise and gets 18 holes in one!

North Korea managed to missile it self. Well that's a turn up for the books. Missiles fail from time to time. There weapons a are pretty experimental.

I guess thr missile designer has come to a bad end. Or the engineers.

I don't think so. Those people are probably too valuable to simply off because of a mistake. Better to simply cover the whole thing up or blame it on the CIA.