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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Can someone explain to me why M.A.D. doesn't work in this case like it did with the USSR, India, Pakistan, etc,?

Because those countries had a credible nuclear program and the means to effectively project their power. All things North Korea lacks

Those counties are also less crazy than NK, with a far less military reliant economy, and nigh on what 50% defense spending. Granted they make that broard term out there.

 Easy E wrote:
Can someone explain to me why M.A.D. doesn't work in this case like it did with the USSR, India, Pakistan, etc,?

MAD only works when leaders have some leeway to back down, to de-escalate. If a US president backs down, or even a Russian or Pakistani president, they don't get killed. They'll lose face, lose political power, and get booted from office. Then they retire to the quiet life. They may not like being away from the center of power but it's preferable to starting a nuclear war that will end up get themselves killed, along with their loved ones and hundreds of millions of other people.

That isn't true for Kim. If he loses his appearance of strength, they don't just boot him from office, they kill him. And they'll kill or imprison his family, including his infant daughter. It is 'win or die' for Kim. So he simply cannot back down, show weakness.

It is interesting to look back at Kruschev, his back down over the Cuban Missile Crisis led pretty directly to his removal from power. But it wasn't a lethal or even an overtly military process. Breznhev took pains to ensure there was no appearance of a coup, and Kruschev himself offered little resistance. He was allowed to give a pretend retirement speach, then given a pension and his old house. Quite civil really (although USSR being what it was he was moved in to a smaller home and given a reduced pension in latter years). What's interesting is that it had been barely more than a decade since Stalin had passed, when, like North Korea today, where falling out of favour with power was a death sentence - a backdown like Kruschev's would have been much more difficult.

MAD only became genuine once Russia transitioned to a fairly normal kind of authoritarian state, is what I'm saying. Even then it requires leaders who are willing to face the political costs of de-escalation, rather than hope the politicians on the other side blink first.

 sebster wrote:

That isn't true for Kim. If he loses his appearance of strength, they don't just boot him from office, they kill him. And they'll kill or imprison his family, including his infant daughter. It is 'win or die' for Kim. So he simply cannot back down, show weakness.

And even if he doesn't get booted from office and killed, backing down runs a serious risk of inviting an invasion (in his view). He absolutely has no leeway for showing weakness.

I'm not sure I buy that, haven't NK backed away from dozens of threats over the years?

MAD seems to be working to me so far

 jhe90 wrote:
Cheyanne mountain is clad in a mile of granite fething mountain. Back up everything. And already built and solid as hell and alot cheaper than a new facility.
Gotta face palm. I ain't military bit even I can see that positioning hardened backups, away from key cities, and targets. Its proof vs everything from nukes tp a bad storm, or nation wide power issues as own back ups. This is a good idea.

Cannot be even dented by terror attack and capable of furfilling mission no matter what be in war, terror, extreme weather, or any other Emergancy from zombies to volcanic eruption situation. 100% reliable command and control facilities.

This and other facilities ensure that the US remains in functional command no matter what happens.
They cannot be attacked easily, cannot be damaged by floods, hurricanes, or other events easily at all that would easily disable a regular even reinforced structure. There likely in sesimicaly stable zones or too reinforced to care, so qauke proof.

They can have a super storm going over and remain in operation, doing there job or even coordinating rescue efforts.
Very short sighted. There value is not just end of the world usage.

I had a co-worker who worked in Cheyenne Mountain back in its hay-day, and he said back when it was originally conceived it was a decent bunker, but he said with today weapons, and I use his words here, "would turn the whole mountain into glass."

So I wouldn't expect it to last long.

But we aren't talking about Russia's weapons, but NK's, who can barely get rockets off the ground without exploding

 ulgurstasta wrote:
I'm not sure I buy that, haven't NK backed away from dozens of threats over the years?

MAD seems to be working to me so far

Mutually Assured Destruction. NK has had no ability to assure the destruction of the US. There's been no MAD.

What we've seen so far has been NK holding SK and at times their own people to ransom - you better give us food & energy or we might do something real stupid to all these people here.

Now the game is moving somewhat closer to MAD. Not mutually assured of course, but with some threat of heavy losses to the US. That means future stand offs won't just be about the US safe guarding SK and Japan, but also themselves. It's a very different game.

The factor to consider, which Sebster mentioned a few posts above, is that Kim is working in a system that will kill him if he plays it wrong.

He's a different man to his father and grandfather, he's new and not 100% secure, and that changes the dynamics he works with and against.

Thus, it's harder to predict what the current Kim will do, based on what a previous Kim did 20 or 35 or 50 years ago.

Personally I believe Kim has driven for working nukes because he saw what happened to Iraq and Libya, who were persuaded to give up their WMDs and then got invaded and the rulers were deposed and killed.

Kim therefore believes that with a demonstrable nuclear capability he can prevent a regime change by the western allies. Hwoever he is not actually a maniac, and he must know that if he nuked a real target such as Seoul, Guam, or Anchorage, it would set off a war that would destroy him. So he's not going to do it.

IDK what the idea is of threatening a trial launch into the sea near Guam but outside the territorial limit. Maybe this won't actually be done. If it is done, in my view it makes Trump's position very difficult. He has already threatened severe retaliation to threats, but he won't have a very supportable casus belli.

If I were in Trump's shoes, I'd make a simple announcement. 'What you do to us, we will do back precisely four times harder'. And then follow through.

So if they launch five missiles at the US base on Guam? Throw twenty cruise missiles into North Korea. Keep the rhetoric low, but adhere to precisely measured retaliation. If Kim wants to throw his toys out of the cot, let him. But let it be very apparent what the consequences are.

And I mean, if a few of those cruise missiles just happened to land on Kim's favourite house, hot dog stand, and airfield, so much the better....

 jhe90 wrote:

Those counties are also less crazy than NK, with a far less military reliant economy, and nigh on what 50% defense spending. Granted they make that broard term out there.

North Korea is a lot more rational than the US, actually. The problem with them being rational, however, is that they have very few options and very stupid enemies.

 Ketara wrote:
If I were in Trump's shoes, I'd make a simple announcement. 'What you do to us, we will do back precisely four times harder'. And then follow through.

So if they launch five missiles at the US base on Guam? Throw twenty cruise missiles into North Korea. Keep the rhetoric low, but adhere to precisely measured retaliation. If Kim wants to throw his toys out of the cot, let him. But let it be very apparent what the consequences are.

And I mean, if a few of those cruise missiles just happened to land on Kim's favourite house, hot dog stand, and airfield, so much the better....

Yes. I think would be the best course of action. The difficulties I see are (1) if NK sends a pattern of 5 missiles at a patch of sea 30 miles away from Guam, then sending 20 missiles at dry land targets is a double escalation. (Though it's pointless to fire them into the Sea of Japan or something.) (2) Trump doesn't seem like the kind of guy who likes to make those kind of measured responses. He's a high-flown threatoric person.

Personally I would support a warning and actual launch of a proportional missile response at land targets because NK are continuously violating UN resolutions. But I would try and square it with allies and the Chinese first.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
If I were in Trump's shoes, I'd make a simple announcement. 'What you do to us, we will do back precisely four times harder'. And then follow through.

So if they launch five missiles at the US base on Guam? Throw twenty cruise missiles into North Korea. Keep the rhetoric low, but adhere to precisely measured retaliation. If Kim wants to throw his toys out of the cot, let him. But let it be very apparent what the consequences are.

And I mean, if a few of those cruise missiles just happened to land on Kim's favourite house, hot dog stand, and airfield, so much the better....

Yes. I think would be the best course of action. The difficulties I see are (1) if NK sends a pattern of 5 missiles at a patch of sea 30 miles away from Guam, then sending 20 missiles at dry land targets is a double escalation. (Though it's pointless to fire them into the Sea of Japan or something.) (2) Trump doesn't seem like the kind of guy who likes to make those kind of measured responses. He's a high-flown threatoric person.

Personally I would support a warning and actual launch of a proportional missile response at land targets because NK are continuously violating UN resolutions. But I would try and square it with allies and the Chinese first.

Can't you just envelop North Korea with anti-missile batteries and shoot down every single missile they launch? No need to escalate matters and waste money by shooting back at empty targets close to NK territory, just humiliate them and expose how technologically outmatched they are.

While theoretically possible, I think the presence of US missile defense system so close to China would upset a few important Chinese people. And the other way around, Chinese anti-missile batteries being drawn closer to SK and its US allies might cause some additional tensions.

Apart from that, there's rumours about NK tunnels leading deep into SK territory - if they decide to sneak atomic bombs in there, that's something missile defense couldn't deal with (Just pointing out that there's no 100% way of making sure NK doesn't do something stupid in a nuclear way)

If anti missile batteries were a viable solution, that would be the obvious choice. As is, they are extremely expensive, and anything capable of engaging an ICBM or intermediate range missile has a rather uninspiring track record of success in testing, and there are nowhere near enough available. China would also have extreme issues with this.

Ultimately the question is going to come down to who does the first stupid thing, and what the feelings of the South Korean government are. The US is not going to make a preemptive move if Seoul feels its going to be obliterated inside of half an hour.

In addition to the SK citizens, there's also millions of NK citizens who are living with the direct consequences of Cold War paranoia gone hot.

There's a real risk that if they see militarization near the borders and feel an attack is imminent, then they are likely to let rip with the retaliation strike. Can you protect the entire of the SK border from any missiles passing it before they launch?

Most likely the safest thing to do is pay someone to overthrow the current Kim

The US anti-missile system isn't as good as it wants to be. It's probably better to concentrate defensive batteries around important targets. (The reliability of NK missiles seems to be fairly low.)

Israel has a pretty impressive system.

 sebster wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
For once I don't agree with McCain. I think Trump is fully capable of acting if North Korea does something. If anything, he'd be incapable of doing nothing. Not that that's a good thing... We might have a case of twitchy trigger fingers on both sides.

McCain wasn't questioning whether Trump was ready to do something. He was talking about having an actual operation lined up both militarily and politically.

While I agree he personally has zero actual plans, in this instance that is probably not a problem. Given that we are actually still at war with North Korea, I'm sure the Pentagon has lots of plans on standby if and when the war gets resumed. Plans which have been constantly refined and updated since 1953.

Unlike Iraq which was probably largely a scratch built plan, there is almost certainly an existing playbook on North Korea. So for once all Trump would have to do is say "Go get em!".

I am no strategist with foreign policy, but I don't think there is a perfect solution.
If I had to approach this I would seek out bright minds like Henry Kissinger or other well known diplomats and see what they would have to say. But for the sake of this discussion here is my fill:

Even if we do liberate these people, what's going to stop the populace from forming bands of civilian militias?
Keep in mind, these people have been indoctrinated throughout their entire lives, and I know this is going to sound very appalling to some of you but...


Another thing that worries me is a land invasion into South Korea and the possibility of them mobilizing into Seoul. I have a lot of Korean friends at my university that have family there and are preparing to go back for their mandatory military service.
As horrific as the situation is, I would rather have us deal with it now while we still have the chance. If we just sit and watch them turn into a true nuclear power what if the unthinkable actually does happen because of our negligence?

 Daemonhost Cherubael wrote:
I am no strategist with foreign policy, but I don't think there is no perfect solution.
If I had to approach this I would seek out bright minds like Henry Kissinger or other well known diplomats and see what they would have to say. But for the sake of this discussion here is my fill:

Even if we do liberate these people, what's going to stop the populace from forming bands of civilian militias?
Keep in mind, these people have been indoctrinated throughout their entire lives, and I know this is going to sound very appalling to some of you but...

Spoiler:

Don't you think that these people are just a lost cause? Think about how long they've been isolated from western civilization and all they know is to spite us.

Another thing that worries me is a land invasion into South Korea and the possibility of them mobilizing into Seoul. I have a lot of Korean friends at my university that have family there and are preparing to go back for their mandatory military service.
As horrific as the situation is, I would rather have us deal with it now while we still have the chance. If we just sit and watch them turn into a true nuclear power what if the unthinkable actually does happen because of our negligence?

If you are concerned that the NK civilians will form endless waves of suicide troops, dying endlessly for the ideals of their Dear Leader, consider Japan post-WW2. Their population was genuinely indoctrinated for centuries that their Emperor was a god. Postwar Japan was a peaceful place and it didn't take long to transition to a world power.

 feeder wrote:

 Daemonhost Cherubael wrote:
I am no strategist with foreign policy, but I don't think there is no perfect solution.
If I had to approach this I would seek out bright minds like Henry Kissinger or other well known diplomats and see what they would have to say. But for the sake of this discussion here is my fill:

Even if we do liberate these people, what's going to stop the populace from forming bands of civilian militias?
Keep in mind, these people have been indoctrinated throughout their entire lives, and I know this is going to sound very appalling to some of you but...

Spoiler:

Don't you think that these people are just a lost cause? Think about how long they've been isolated from western civilization and all they know is to spite us.

Another thing that worries me is a land invasion into South Korea and the possibility of them mobilizing into Seoul. I have a lot of Korean friends at my university that have family there and are preparing to go back for their mandatory military service.
As horrific as the situation is, I would rather have us deal with it now while we still have the chance. If we just sit and watch them turn into a true nuclear power what if the unthinkable actually does happen because of our negligence?

If you are concerned that the NK civilians will form endless waves of suicide troops, dying endlessly for the ideals of their Dear Leader, consider Japan post-WW2. Their population was genuinely indoctrinated for centuries that their Emperor was a god. Postwar Japan was a peaceful place and it didn't take long to transition to a world power.

There emperor and god did confirm the surrender though.
So the document was maybe seen as more "valid"

 Daemonhost Cherubael wrote:

Even if we do liberate these people, what's going to stop the populace from forming bands of civilian militias?
Keep in mind, these people have been indoctrinated throughout their entire lives, and I know this is going to sound very appalling to some of you but...

Spoiler:

Don't you think that these people are just a lost cause? Think about how long they've been isolated from western civilization and all they know is to spite us.

Let's just get it out in the open. What exactly are you suggesting here?

 Daemonhost Cherubael wrote:
I am no strategist with foreign policy, but I don't think there is no perfect solution.
If I had to approach this I would seek out bright minds like Henry Kissinger or other well known diplomats and see what they would have to say. But for the sake of this discussion here is my fill:

Even if we do liberate these people, what's going to stop the populace from forming bands of civilian militias?
Keep in mind, these people have been indoctrinated throughout their entire lives, and I know this is going to sound very appalling to some of you but...

Spoiler:

Don't you think that these people are just a lost cause? Think about how long they've been isolated from western civilization and all they know is to spite us.

Another thing that worries me is a land invasion into South Korea and the possibility of them mobilizing into Seoul. I have a lot of Korean friends at my university that have family there and are preparing to go back for their mandatory military service.
As horrific as the situation is, I would rather have us deal with it now while we still have the chance. If we just sit and watch them turn into a true nuclear power what if the unthinkable actually does happen because of our negligence?

Kissinger is a war criminal and can't travel freely because he'll risk being arrested.

 jhe90 wrote:


There emperor and god did confirm the surrender though.
So the document was maybe seen as more "valid"

That's true. Push comes to shove, it shouldn't be too hard to convince Dear Leader to do the same though. I doubt he believes his own hype.

The idea of a long guerilla war in NK is probably unrealistic. Yes, the population lives in an echo chamber of propaganda, but it's all tied into a cult of personality, with weirdly specific chatacteristsics, that most of them also realize is bunk on some level. If the leader fails to maintain power, the cause is broken, nobody is going to pick that flag up, espcially with SK there that would be providing massive assistance and investment.

Criminal gangs of hungry and desperate soldiers, former military officers turning to organized crimes, etc (fall of the Warsaw Pact style) is what I would be worried about far more than some sort of organized Juche guerilla movement in the vein of Al Qaeda or ISIS or even the Viet Cong. The conditions are far different.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The idea of a long guerilla war in NK is probably unrealistic. Yes, the population lives in an echo chamber of propaganda, but it's all tied into a cult of personality, with weirdly specific chatacteristsics, that most of them also realize is bunk on some level. If the leader fails to maintain power, the cause is broken, nobody is going to pick that flag up, espcially with SK there that would be providing massive assistance and investment.

Criminal gangs of hungry and desperate soldiers, former military officers turning to organized crimes, etc (fall of the Warsaw Pact style) is what I would be worried about far more than some sort of organized Juche guerilla movement in the vein of Al Qaeda or ISIS or even the Viet Cong. The conditions are far different.

Definitely. The situation calls for a Marshall Plan solution.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/08/10/japan-ready-to-protect-guam-defense-minister-says.html

Looks like Japan wants to get involved. Can't say I'm surprised (or against it ).

 feeder wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The idea of a long guerilla war in NK is probably unrealistic. Yes, the population lives in an echo chamber of propaganda, but it's all tied into a cult of personality, with weirdly specific chatacteristsics, that most of them also realize is bunk on some level. If the leader fails to maintain power, the cause is broken, nobody is going to pick that flag up, espcially with SK there that would be providing massive assistance and investment.

Criminal gangs of hungry and desperate soldiers, former military officers turning to organized crimes, etc (fall of the Warsaw Pact style) is what I would be worried about far more than some sort of organized Juche guerilla movement in the vein of Al Qaeda or ISIS or even the Viet Cong. The conditions are far different.

Definitely. The situation calls for a Marshall Plan solution.

That'd be something I'd be onboard... but, the cost of what we've seen in Iraq/Afganistan would pale in comparison to the Koreas...

Also... any see this?
https://twitter.com/passantino/status/895043437367410688

“the air pirates of Guam”

Please, oh please someone confirm that some squaddies named themselves as this!

Prime Minister Abe is a right-wing nationalist with a continuing programme of trying to change the Japanese constitution to get the JSDF forces renamed as armies, navies, and so on, and allow them to be used for aggressive operations.

This is unpopular with a wide range of the voting public.

That said, the Japanese dislike and are worried about North Korea (doubly so because of actually having taken two nuclear strikes at the end of WW2.) Consequently, every time Kim shoots a missile over Japan, he adds a few grains of sand to the side of the scales that leads to the renewal of Japanese militarism.

I'm certainly not opposed to Japanese rearmament (they are one of our closest allies), but only if that Japanese people push for it.