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.

It was too out there to suggest that China could just annex the place. But I do hope that they're now at point where they'll finally cut fatboy loose.

Realistically, the only things we can really do to calm the situation is to sit down and realize that North Korea is around for the long haul and actually work with them.

North Korea plays to their internal base by claiming that the US is the big bad guy and wants to attack and annihilate North Korea. And honestly, they don't have to try very hard to actually make that claim seem realistic. Our leadership are comfortable enough to threaten North Korea with annihilation on a pretty regular basis, and while POTUS has stepped back just a bit this is something that comes from all levels of our civilian leadership on the executive and legislative side. We have a large military presence that is a constant threat to them, and we are holding regular war games simulating how we are going to fight them. It's not a crazy claim for them to make when we are constantly surrounding them and practicing for executing that claim. Just look at how ape people get yelling "if one of their missiles gets close to our territory it's all out fething war", while we park our military and nuclear assets next door and practice destroying them on a regular basis.

They are not a signatory to the Treaty of Non-Proliferation, so there is no legal requirement for them not to possess nuclear weapons, and the entire justification for them not having nuclear weapons is based on other countries publicly declaring "we don't want them to have them". Yeah, once they start throwing them at people it's an issue but other than "we don't like a nuclear North Korea" there really isn't a valid reason to prevent them from having them.

So we have tried intimidating them with our military for decades. and they just use that intimidation to show that we are constantly threatening them and are using that so justify their military ambitions. We openly talk about wanting to overthrow North Korea and they are using that to show that we are constantly threatening their way of life.

Our way of dealing with North Korea has been a policy of "fething come at me bro" with a sprinkling of "we'll take the food away from your people" because any sanctions just get passed down to the peasants anyway.

It goes against our "we don't negotiate with bad guys" mindset, but maybe we need to sit down and give the "let North Korea have their weapons and their leadership and actually engage with them" approach a try.

Although those are good points, I feel like engaging with him at that level would simply embolden him. He would think that threats of violence work, and will therefore keep at it.

Unfortunately, given the power dynamics at play within North Korea, the regime needs to perpetually be, or appear to be, a hairs breadth away from war. They have to milk at least the appearance that they are under constant and insidious threat of attack. That is how they maintain their grip on power, having an all powerful hostile foreign entity looking to destroy you is an irresistible boogeyman for such governments. If they did not exist, they will create such foes somehow for the sake of their power.

Well, we really only have three options.

1) Do the same thing we have been doing, it hasn't worked in decades but maybe it will at some point.

2) Execute a military option that will doom the entire peninsula to death and destruction, level the capital of South Korea, and create a humanitarian crisis that will make the middle east seem like a cakewalk.

3) Engage with them directly and let them have their toys.

Thanks for all the posts.
It is a strong consideration that South Korea is pretty much a hostage for any USA (or anyone for that matter) attack scenario of North Korea.

I had thought that "surgical strikes" would be the way to go with no nuclear use.
I cant help feeling that neutralizing their leadership as a first step would be more than sufficient to stall a retaliation since everyone would be TERRIFIED to do anything without permission.

After getting a missile shot over their country, I am reasonably certain Japan has some rather nasty plans ready of their own, limited military or not.
Culturally, I have found them to not be the type to let things happen to them without a fight.
Being on the receiving end of two nuclear bombs historically... I think it would be a rather emphatic "never again!".

I understand NK wants to be taken seriously, but the message of "back off" vs "you want a piece of this?!?" cultivates their own special responses by other countries.
Yeah, confirmed homicidal crazy gives an overwhelming need for the sane to take their toys away.

 Talizvar wrote:

I understand NK wants to be taken seriously, but the message of "back off" vs "you want a piece of this?!?" cultivates their own special responses by other countries.

But to be fair, that has been the foreign policy of the US for decades as well.

North Korea and the US are two frat boys yelling "you want a piece of this, come at me bro, please make my day and punch me, better hold me back guys or it will get ugly, that's right, you are lucky my buddy is here to stop me from stomping your ass" while their respective frat brothers are making a token show of holding them back from the fight (with China somehow managing to join both fraternities at the same time).

 d-usa wrote:
Well, we really only have three options.

1) Do the same thing we have been doing, it hasn't worked in decades but maybe it will at some point.

2) Execute a military option that will doom the entire peninsula to death and destruction, level the capital of South Korea, and create a humanitarian crisis that will make the middle east seem like a cakewalk.

3) Engage with them directly and let them have their toys.

Clearly, containment is the way forward.... as it has always been.

Here's the thing.

If in this bad future. Guam is hit. Gain is not only target.
NK missile strikes would be aimed at taking out all key bases in range. Okinowa, JDF. US pacific fleet, the SK forces.

They are gonna try and destroy the allied bases to prevent counter attack.

Kim will have one element of surprise. Not waste it on a single target. He hit everyone, move south fast as can, try to knock them out war before the west can react.

Its risky... Super risky.
Chances are he loses. Millions still die or wounded at worst.

Any events that happen will be part of a far larger game.

There is no good solution unfortunately. That's the simple reality. There is no clear, safe, effective option. If there was, it would have been acted on long ago.

The choice has, for decades been, do we take the risk and destroy the crazy regime now and risk hundreds of thousands of lives, maybe millions, on both sides of the border and incur trillions of dollars in damages, or do we let it sit and either wait for the NK regime to fizzle out and fall (as pretty much all such regimes seem to do eventually) or potentially become an even greater threat as it slides down the rabbit hole of insanity?

It also doesnt help that the examples of Gaddafi and Hussein have shown what happens to crazy dictatorial regimes that honk off the West without a suitable retaliatory option to defend themselves with, which only reinforces the crazy, thiugh not that Gaddafi and Hussein didnt get exactly what they deserved either.

Theoretically speaking.

Would a systemic strategic nuclear strike by the US of all known North Korean military assets capable of rendering uncouth damage to Seoul be possible? If so, what would the repercussions be?

Also, not theoretically...I think there is a good chance Japan or South Korea will act before the US, possibly together.

 trexmeyer wrote:
Theoretically speaking.

Would a systemic strategic nuclear strike by the US of all known North Korean military assets capable of rendering uncouth damage to Seoul be possible? If so, what would the repercussions be?

North Korea would have a few miniutes to react before the missiles hit, it's not a good idea.
No idea what the political repercussions would be... we're still protected under MAD doctrine so I guess it would sail..

 trexmeyer wrote:
Also, not theoretically...I think there is a good chance Japan or South Korea will act before the US, possibly together.

No chance in hell lol. US is the security provider in the region, Japan and South Korea won't do anything, they will ask the US first, and if Japan did get hit, who responds? US does.
The only instance Japan is responding to anything are Chinese invasions of their islands.

 trexmeyer wrote:
Theoretically speaking.

Would a systemic strategic nuclear strike by the US of all known North Korean military assets capable of rendering uncouth damage to Seoul be possible? If so, what would the repercussions be?

They have spent tons of effort over many decades hiding lots of stuff that almost certainly will evade detection if every conflict in the last 50 years is indication. More to the point, given that almost *everything* in NK has a military presence of some sort, and that the entire border is one long military encampment, and you'd have to nuke the entire country end to end, and neither China nor South Korea, nor Japan nor Russia are going to be thrilled at dealing with fallout.

Also, not theoretically...I think there is a good chance Japan or South Korea will act before the US, possibly together.

neither will make a major move without the US, but its possible they may prod for action before the US does.

 trexmeyer wrote:
Would a systemic strategic nuclear strike by the US of all known North Korean military assets capable of rendering uncouth damage to Seoul be possible?

Sure. We have plenty of nukes, we can cover all of North Korea just fine.

If so, what would the repercussions be?

Horrifying civilian casualties, plus whatever retaliation the rest of the world hits the US with for the massacre. At best you're talking about massive diplomatic and economic consequences where everyone agrees that the US needs to be stopped and throws the US into full isolation with catastrophic consequences. At worst you're talking about full-scale nuclear war to eliminate the butcher before they can do it again.

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

No, because 'start a war with NK before NK starts a war' makes no sense at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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'.

Offer that to China if you want. After a long, confused stare they will reply, "thankyou but I think we'd rather not'.

Just a couple of thoughts.

 Peregrine wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
Would a systemic strategic nuclear strike by the US of all known North Korean military assets capable of rendering uncouth damage to Seoul be possible?

Sure. We have plenty of nukes, we can cover all of North Korea just fine.

If so, what would the repercussions be?

Horrifying civilian casualties, plus whatever retaliation the rest of the world hits the US with for the massacre. At best you're talking about massive diplomatic and economic consequences where everyone agrees that the US needs to be stopped and throws the US into full isolation with catastrophic consequences. At worst you're talking about full-scale nuclear war to eliminate the butcher before they can do it again.

And that's assuming that China goes "oh look, missiles heading this way, ho hum" instead of "!!!!!" as soon as they spot multiple incoming SLBMs or IRBMs (I'm assuming ICBMs are out of the question, launching those is a good way to kill everyone).

Not to mention, when you launch those nukes, China will detect them and it will not be clear until they land whether they are targeting North Korea or China. Are they going to wait and see before they launch their retaliatory strike?

We could always employ the Cuba policy we did with the USSR: any attack from NK will be viewed as a direct attack from China itself.

China will quit playing games (NK did not develop all that that fast without China help) and realize thus is now serious gak. China is using NK as a negotiation tool.

Well, the issue is that China doesnt have the great hand behind NK that some think it does, and isnt stationing its weapons or troops in NK the way the USSR was in Cuba. In Cuba, those were Soviet weapons manned by Soviet troops under Soviet command. Such is not the case with North Korea, and the chinese have been on board with many big recent actions against NK and NK has bitten them publicly for it. China would be just as happy with NK gone if they knew it woulf mean US forces would leave SK, they no longer have any particular love for NK and basically see them as an unfortunately necessary buffer between them and direct contact with US military forces.

The biggest offender for NK's advancement in missiles and nukes is, most probably, Pakistan (who did receive assistance from China on their program). It should also be kept in mind that these technologies are rather mature, dating back 50 years or more, and NK devotes an obscene amount of its resources to developing these programs at great cost to aost everything else in the nation.

 Frazzled wrote:
We could always employ the Cuba policy we did with the USSR: any attack from NK will be viewed as a direct attack from China itself.

China will quit playing games (NK did not develop all that that fast without China help) and realize thus is now serious gak. China is using NK as a negotiation tool.

Or it turns into a thermonuclear war between China and the US. Remember that China does not respond well to threats, and are much less concerned about the lives of their people than say, Russia.

The best way to approach this is to make it out that Chinese politicians are losing face over this.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
We could always employ the Cuba policy we did with the USSR: any attack from NK will be viewed as a direct attack from China itself.

China will quit playing games (NK did not develop all that that fast without China help) and realize thus is now serious gak. China is using NK as a negotiation tool.

Or it turns into a thermonuclear war between China and the US. Remember that China does not respond well to threats, and are much less concerned about the lives of their people than say, Russia.

The best way to approach this is to make it out that Chinese politicians are losing face over this.

I do think it's best not to say we'd attack China. I think it would be best to mock them for losing control over their lapdog AND say that China needs to cut all ties with North Korea and end all aid or we'll start pinching their economy.

See, we actually have a good bit of power over China now. They NEED us to keep buying their products or their economy would suffer total collapse, which would like lead to political revolution. Even if we simply slapped some massive tariffs on anything produced in China it would hurt them big time.

Thats why North Korea is now a problem for China instead of an asset. They just need to realize it.

The US would not come off any better in such a trade war, we both buy too much stuff from each other, stuff that the other cannot readily replace or replace with the same cost effectiveness. Slapping massive tarriffs on Chinese goods would be economic suicide, and cut the biggest incentive China has to cooperate. There's a reason that hasnt been done yet, and why tariffs are seen as 19th century mechanisms.The world economy is far too interconnected for something like that to not horrifically backfire.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
We could always employ the Cuba policy we did with the USSR: any attack from NK will be viewed as a direct attack from China itself.

China will quit playing games (NK did not develop all that that fast without China help) and realize thus is now serious gak. China is using NK as a negotiation tool.

Or it turns into a thermonuclear war between China and the US. Remember that China does not respond well to threats, and are much less concerned about the lives of their people than say, Russia.

The best way to approach this is to make it out that Chinese politicians are losing face over this.

You're assuming this won't happen in the future anyway.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The US would not come off any better in such a trade war, we both buy too much stuff from each other, stuff that the other cannot readily replace or replace with the same cost effectiveness. Slapping massive tarriffs on Chinese goods would be economic suicide, and cut the biggest incentive China has to cooperate. There's a reason that hasnt been done yet, and why tariffs are seen as 19th century mechanisms.The world economy is far too interconnected for something like that to not horrifically backfire.

Yes, it would hurt us too. But less than it hurts them. And the point of such a threat is to not have to go through with it(but be willing to go through with it if China doesn't cooperate) because China backs down.

This could all be solved if we just air dropped Tex Mex into NK. No one is angry when they are busy eating carne asada.

 Frazzled wrote:
This could all be solved if we just air dropped Tex Mex into NK. No one is angry when they are busy eating carne asada.

You can't solve every problem by invading a country during their post Tex Mex food coma.

 Frazzled wrote:
This could all be solved if we just air dropped Tex Mex into NK. No one is angry when they are busy eating carne asada.

NK already has enough toxic gas.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
This could all be solved if we just air dropped Tex Mex into NK. No one is angry when they are busy eating carne asada.

You can't solve every problem by invading a country during their post Tex Mex food coma.

No no TexMex is the food of peace. Drop TexMex and soon they'll be too fat to invade anyone. Plus they'd all just keel over from heart attacks.

When all you have is Tex Mex, every problem looks like a bowl of queso.

To be fair, given the level of malnutrition the average North Korean has, dropping Tex Mex would probably have an appreciable fatality rate.