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.

**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?

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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...

**Dreadclaw69**

I sincerely hope not.

**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?

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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,?

**Kilkrazy**

In what way is it not working? North Korea hasn't attacked the USA. I can't see they ever will.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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