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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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

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.

 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.

 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.

 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,

 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.

 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.

 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.

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).

 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.

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

 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.

 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.

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.

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.

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.