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.

 jhe90 wrote:


Maybe we should of made it calafornia. Some people Don, t like that state.

I dont like my state ether

 jhe90 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 feeder wrote:

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

Has anyone shot a missile at the US since the Japanese fire balloons of WW2?

Yeah, some months back, one of Britain's trident submarines accidentally fired a nuclear warhead towards Florida during a training exercise. Luckily, it was only a dummy missle.

Can't believe the USA bought the training exercise mistake. We'll get those 13 colonies back one day

Florida?

meh.

Maybe we should of made it calafornia. Some people Don, t like that state.

That may be true, but California is no where in the category of being compared to Florida.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 feeder wrote:

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

Has anyone shot a missile at the US since the Japanese fire balloons of WW2?

Yeah, some months back, one of Britain's trident submarines accidentally fired a nuclear warhead towards Florida during a training exercise. Luckily, it was only a dummy missle.

Can't believe the USA bought the training exercise mistake. We'll get those 13 colonies back one day

Florida?

meh.

Maybe we should of made it calafornia. Some people Don, t like that state.

That may be true, but California is no where in the category of being compared to Florida.

Well whichever one. Your the state equivalent of maybe Birmingham or Milton Keynes lol.

We are all aware that the biggest issue in regards to war with NK is that Seoul is within range of NK artillery and any action short of a flawless first strike will probably leave several hundred thousand civilians dead, right?

25+ million people live in the Seoul metro area. That's roughly half the entire country and it's not like RoK is some backwards nation. It's one of the more powerful economies in the world and that could be completely gutted if North Korea attacks Seoul. Aside from the massive loss of a life, that would be a huge disruption to their economy and all of Asia. You'd have to go back to WW2 to be able to compare it to anything...

 feeder wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 feeder wrote:

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

Has anyone shot a missile at the US since the Japanese fire balloons of WW2?

Yeah, some months back, one of Britain's trident submarines accidentally fired a nuclear warhead towards Florida during a training exercise. Luckily, it was only a dummy missle.

Can't believe the USA bought the training exercise mistake. We'll get those 13 colonies back one day

Florida?

meh.

Not cool. You don't shoot a guy in the dick.

Um...my daughter would (she's trained properly on Texas style negotiation techniques- no means no!)

 Ouze wrote:

 reds8n wrote:

No effort was made by Japan to shoot down the missile

is it really even that feasible to do this ?

Probably not, but if THAAD (or a similar system) could, I don't think we'd disclose it for fear of triggering a new arms race.

 trexmeyer wrote:
We are all aware that the biggest issue in regards to war with NK is that Seoul is within range of NK artillery and any action short of a flawless first strike will probably leave several hundred thousand civilians dead, right?

Yeah, that was like the second page of this thread.

For all the folks who were calling Trump a tactical genius after his early comments, note that this time around he's been much more measured, and hasn't strayed from lines being supplied to him. Whether he realised it himself after those stupid 'fire and fury' comments, or whether Mattis and Tillerson sat Trump down and lectured him for as long as it took, it seems Trump has realised that international brinkmanship is not the kind of thing you can make up as you go along. So now he's following the script and making sure US action is aligned with SK and Japan.

tneva82 wrote:
Has the Japan even changed their constitution? If not they cannot shoot that down unless it's being aimed at the Japan. Even if it was primed and armed nuke heading for US they couldn't shoot down without violating their consitution(provided it's not already been changed). Albeit they might in that case not care about that. Who's going to prosecute them? NK only...

Any action to declare mobilisation illegal would happen within Japan itself. Even the risk of such action would make the country wary, you don't want to enter a war while going through a constitutional crisis.

Are we in consensus that no matter what happens, enough is enough and that this regime has got to go?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Are we in consensus that no matter what happens, enough is enough and that this regime has got to go?

Honestly, that's not our call. SK and Japan has to make that call as they'll bear the brunt of NK's retaliation.

 whembly wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Are we in consensus that no matter what happens, enough is enough and that this regime has got to go?

Honestly, that's not our call. SK and Japan has to make that call as they'll bear the brunt of NK's retaliation.

Good point. China too I suppose.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Are we in consensus that no matter what happens, enough is enough and that this regime has got to go?

Honestly, that's not our call. SK and Japan has to make that call as they'll bear the brunt of NK's retaliation.

Good point. China too I suppose.

Meh... China would bear the aftermath, not the retaliation. Frankly, I have no sympathy for China in this regard as it's their Paper Tiger™.

I think people are asking a lot of China to stand down. NK is literally in their backyard. Seeing a US-influenced united Korea with a US-style military using US-style hardware is something they want less than this crazy upstart they have now.

It's like if we were in the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis, all sitting around and murmuring "The US really must back down." *steeples fingers*

Pyongyang is trying recreate the Seoul situation on a larger scale. Which is to hold a Japanese city or better yet an American city hostage with the threat of nuclear destruction if the regime falls. Works on a small scale for decades why wouldn't it work on a large scale?

I don't think Pyongyang is interested in disarmament whatsoever, not for food, not for money, not for development. All of those mean nothing if the regime does not survive. I think the South Koreans are operating under the delusion that Pyongyang will stop if the right incentive is presented. SK will suffer the most besides NK if conflict breaks out so their policy is focused toward the prevention of conflict not the prevention of long range nuclear capability. Combine this with the US's perennial cycle back toward inward focus, lack of internal cohesion and lack of stomach for military adventure. Consider also South Korea's own domestic troubles and recent election.

Sanctions are going to do nothing, the more the conventional military capabilities of the DPRK are degraded the more they will need to rely on non-conventional deterrence. In fact the longer this stalemate continues all the better for NK, the more time they have to work in peace.

I believe the North Koreans will get a nuclear ICBM.

Evil idea; what if we allowed china to take North Korea? Let them annex and absorb it, write it off and South Korea can simply become 'Korea'.

I think you nailed it with the first two words. Just becasue the PRC is less crazy evil than the DPRK doesn't make them not-crazy evil.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Evil idea; what if we allowed china to take North Korea? Let them annex and absorb it, write it off and South Korea can simply become 'Korea'.

The Koreans, North and South, wouldnt stand for that, and China doesnt really have anything to gain except a backwards province of ethnically and culturally distinct people that will just be another trouble spot for them.

 whembly wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Are we in consensus that no matter what happens, enough is enough and that this regime has got to go?

Honestly, that's not our call. SK and Japan has to make that call as they'll bear the brunt of NK's retaliation.

UNLESS the US is attacked, then their considerations are secondary.

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Are we in consensus that no matter what happens, enough is enough and that this regime has got to go?

Honestly, that's not our call. SK and Japan has to make that call as they'll bear the brunt of NK's retaliation.

UNLESS the US is attacked, then their considerations are secondary.

Tru dat.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Evil idea; what if we allowed china to take North Korea? Let them annex and absorb it, write it off and South Korea can simply become 'Korea'.

China does not want that. They'd have to deal with a massive influx of millions of starving civilians who would be of no practical use to society beyond manual labor and who would have very little ability to integrate into their society. China's economy would tank.

Same thing with South Korea, but even worse. You'd have people who are practically living in the stone age having sudden culture shock into a highly advanced society. And that advanced society suddenly having to deal with these uneducated people being nothing but a burden.

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Are we in consensus that no matter what happens, enough is enough and that this regime has got to go?

Honestly, that's not our call. SK and Japan has to make that call as they'll bear the brunt of NK's retaliation.

UNLESS the US is attacked, then their considerations are secondary.

That would probably depend on the circumstances and scale of the attack I would imagine. We are ostensibly there to protect South Korea.

If we're willing to trade potentially six figures worth of SK civilian casualties and the destruction of their Capitol city and gobs of important world economic capital over a few hundred military dead, well, that may be...well, rather self defeating, in a number of different ways.

You didn't read my post. I said unless the US is attacked. That's instant full scale war.

 Frazzled wrote:
You didn't read my post. I said unless the US is attacked. That's instant full scale war.

That depends on what is meant by the "US". If they nuke a US city with a big bomb and kill tens or hundreds of thousands, ok. If they hit Guam with a sub kiloton warhead or a conventional weapon of some sort, or a failed attack that does nothing to to continental US, that may be harder to push in the same way with South Korea if they arent on the same page.

Pearl harbor was just a territory too.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You didn't read my post. I said unless the US is attacked. That's instant full scale war.

That depends on what is meant by the "US". If they nuke a US city with a big bomb and kill tens or hundreds of thousands, ok. If they hit Guam with a sub kiloton warhead or a conventional weapon of some sort, or a failed attack that does nothing to to continental US, that may be harder to push in the same way with South Korea if they arent on the same page.

If they Nuke a a US Base even with a small one, and destroy a small US Base. That's still war.

Pearl harbour was ernough to be considered war. Their strike for a rather powerful counter attack.

They deployed and used a tactical nuclear warhead. He gone from being words to being a genuine and real danger to the world. Exacted a strike against a foreign military power and even China has said that any war he starts. He on his own.

Even they won, t back him unless its regime change.

If they use tactical nukes. Then he a danger to entire region.
There is no Lee way. It is war.

They deployed and used a tactical nuclear warhead. He gone from being words to being a genuine and real danger to the world. Exacted a strike against a foreign military power and even China has said that any war he starts. He on his own.

Whoa wait what? Who deployed a tactical nuke? They sent a missile over Japan, but AFAIK there was no warhead attached at all and the missile just broke into pieces on descent/landing in the ocean. No explosives. No warhead. Exacted a strike? What was struck? International waters?

This is a provocation, yes, but more than that? Mnah.

Edit: Or were you speaking about a theoretical attack on places like Guam the whole time? In that case I missed that, sorry.

tneva82 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 reds8n wrote:

No effort was made by Japan to shoot down the missile

is it really even that feasible to do this ?

Spoiler:

Probably not, but if THAAD (or a similar system) could, I don't think we'd disclose it for fear of triggering a new arms race.

 Witzkatz wrote:

They deployed and used a tactical nuclear warhead. He gone from being words to being a genuine and real danger to the world. Exacted a strike against a foreign military power and even China has said that any war he starts. He on his own.

Whoa wait what? Who deployed a tactical nuke? They sent a missile over Japan, but AFAIK there was no warhead attached at all and the missile just broke into pieces on descent/landing in the ocean. No explosives. No warhead. Exacted a strike? What was struck? International waters?

This is a provocation, yes, but more than that? Mnah.

Edit: Or were you speaking about a theoretical attack on places like Guam the whole time? In that case I missed that, sorry.

I was. Even if the theoroical strike was small. It is a huge phase shift from threats to real danger.

There is no going back from that even if ignored. Anything he then says will now be held as very very real.

So a threat to declare war.... Well he might end up starting one.

Right now we treat him as a abit of a clown. He fires a lives missile at someone. Things are definitely not funny any more and they become very very serious

tneva82 wrote:
Has the Japan even changed their constitution? If not they cannot shoot that down unless it's being aimed at the Japan. Even if it was primed and armed nuke heading for US they couldn't shoot down without violating their consitution(provided it's not already been changed). Albeit they might in that case not care about that. Who's going to prosecute them? NK only...

Not quite, it's interpretation has been changed so that they can intervene in defense of an ally (in this case the US). And this has yet to be overturned. They still can take no offensive actions, however.

 Frazzled wrote:
Pearl harbor was just a territory too.

Right, but the Japanese didnt have a major world economic capital of a primary US ally held hostage under 5 digits worth of big guns that could kill tens of thousands and destroy critical economic targets that impact the daily lives of hundreds of millions across the planet at the literal drop of a hat. That's what has kept NK safe thus far, even after egregious acts of barbarity or outright hostile attack in the past from NK.

Unless that capabaility is neutralized or the blow particularly egregious, that is NK's MAD deterrent, and has proven successful in the past despite NK attacks on US warships, attacks on SK territory and artillery exchanges, kidnapping operations, the slaying of US troops engaged in tree trimming in the DMZ, etc.

Any reprisal against NK will have to weigh those costs, and the South Koreans have a voice in that, as they could choose to prevent the US from using its territory or assets in such an operation if they felt it was not in their interests, and depending on what form US reprisal took, that may matter quite a bit.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You didn't read my post. I said unless the US is attacked. That's instant full scale war.

That depends on what is meant by the "US". If they nuke a US city with a big bomb and kill tens or hundreds of thousands, ok. If they hit Guam with a sub kiloton warhead or a conventional weapon of some sort, or a failed attack that does nothing to to continental US, that may be harder to push in the same way with South Korea if they arent on the same page.

If they Nuke a a US Base even with a small one, and destroy a small US Base. That's still war.

Pearl harbour was ernough to be considered war. Their strike for a rather powerful counter attack.

They deployed and used a tactical nuclear warhead. He gone from being words to being a genuine and real danger to the world. Exacted a strike against a foreign military power and even China has said that any war he starts. He on his own.

Even they won, t back him unless its regime change.

If they use tactical nukes. Then he a danger to entire region.
There is no Lee way. It is war.

It might be, but the concerns of the South Koreans would not simply be "secondary". If they felt that the US response was likely to get a lot of them killed for no appreciable gain, they could make any US response dramatically more difficult.

Not that such would necessarily be the case, but to go back to the original point, the concerns of the South Koreans would not simply be secondary in any and all NK attack scenarios.