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.

 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.

 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.

All these approaches need the support primarily of the Chinese.

I think we've found your problem right there.

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.

 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.

People keep glossing over the THEY HAVE NUKES thing.

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.

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

 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.

 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.

 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.

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.

Sounds like your standard British king to me.

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!

 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.

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.

 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.

Alternatively, NK could decide to get filthy rich like China. I cannot figure out why they do not go that route.

 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.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
So how hard would it be to just line up one battleship from every country in the UN (they can be smaller battleships) and just say ok, now what?

North Korea knows they face overwhelming military power, and the rest of the world is unified against them. That's not the issue. The issue is how we handle NK being really pissed about that situation, in way that doesn't push them in to doing something really stupid.

Well, the US could for starters stop threatening them with destruction. The US could stop invading countries that don't obey it. That sort of thing.

North Korea invaded South Korea. It has kidnapped SK citizens, and fired artillery into SK. They are now threatening to attack a US base. The last time that happened we buried them with nuclear fire. read a damn book before you post kid.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
North Korea invaded South Korea. It has kidnapped SK citizens, and fired artillery into SK. They are now threatening to attack a US base. The last time that happened we buried them with nuclear fire. read a damn book before you post kid.

None of those things happened outside of the context of the Korean war and US intervention in the region.

Again read a book, or just Google it (The daughter used google to open a lock yesterday. I think she has some super secret google that old farts like me don't have).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_abductions_of_Japanese_citizens
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_abductions_of_South_Koreans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Yeonpyeong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_involving_North_Korea

Additionally, the use of nuclear weapons on Japanese cities was an atrocity done mainly to frighten the USSR.

Revisionist bs by people from countries who didn't lift a finger in WWII.

Bringing up that the US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons against civilians doesn't do a lot to argue that it's justified in doing so again.

Indeed so don't ever ever ever feth with us and attack us. Why doesn't NK understand that?

 djones520 wrote:
I'm not a fan of Trump, that's been made pretty clear, but I'm tired of this "he's trying to start a war" crap.

A foreign nation threatened to strike us with nuclear weapons. Our response has been stern words.

And he's trying to start a war? Seriously, there is plenty of bad gak to point out. A nations leader speaking in defense of his nation is not one of them.

exactly. A proper response to a threat against sovereign US territory is to to turn every sub and carrier we have around and park them on NK's coast and send them a detailed list of each nuke we have now targeted on Dear Leader. If they even blink wrong, nuke every god damn square foot of NK.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

Any direct attack on US and then you will see what amount of destruction a full modern military can unleash in short time.

Yeah we already saw that in Iraq.

no.you didn't. That was restraint.

Jorim wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I'm not a fan of Trump, that's been made pretty clear, but I'm tired of this "he's trying to start a war" crap.

A foreign nation threatened to strike us with nuclear weapons. Our response has been stern words.

And he's trying to start a war? Seriously, there is plenty of bad gak to point out. A nations leader speaking in defense of his nation is not one of them.

exactly. A proper response to a threat against sovereign US territory is to to turn every sub and carrier we have around and park them on NK's coast and send them a detailed list of each nuke we have now targeted on Dear Leader. If they even blink wrong, nuke every god damn square foot of NK.

So you propose the death of millions of people and total destruction of at least two countries, one of them beeing your ally, as reaction to a threat? Not to mention the ensuing fallout trat would hit half the world including the US...
That really sounds like a solid and totaly appropriat plan... (sarcasm of)

hell yes. Let that be policy.attack the US and we will exterminate your entire people. That was policy when we dealt with the native American tribes and I like them way more than NK. Besides that's existing MAD strategy right now.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
hell yes. Let that be policy.attack the US and we will exterminate your entire people. That was policy when we dealt with the native American tribes and I like them way more than NK. Besides that's existing MAD strategy right now.

Good. But only if this also applies to when Americans attack America. I'll bring popcorn!

Except New Mexico. They are so hard core , they nuked themselves!

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
It's okay because we used to kill the Native Americans all the time.

'Used to'???? You still fething do and don't give enough of a gak for it to get news coverage. They found that you were 57% more likely to be shot by police for 'walking while Native' than 'driving while black'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Except New Mexico. They are so hard core , they nuked themselves!

And Nevada?

Hey what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas...

Well looks like Japan needs to send out its newest protective assets

That's an act of war actually. If no did this over Hawaii then there's a really good chance we would be emptying our inventory of remaining bombs and missiles into NK within 24 hours.

Shooting a missile into the US would demand an immediate an overwhelming response. That's policy back to Truman.

One of the cartels was flinging drugs over the wall via a trebuchet. Does that count

Mr. President, we cannot allow a Trebuchet Gap!