Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:
Jesus...

Would you tolerate any nation just lobbing a nuke-capable ICBM over your country?

Yes, because if you do anything stupid the next missile won't just be flying over...

 sebster wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
We have plenty of nuke armed nations as well. What's one more? They are less likely to use them than Trump is so...And as it is first strike at NK will result in war with China which has enough firepower for mutual wipeout and likely rest of the world. So that's not really an option.

Your assumption that China is so protective of NK that they'll go to war with the US and risk global annihilation is more than a stretch. China's days of seeing NK as a nation to protect as one of their only friends is literally generations out of date. The situation now is China now has a large international footprint and a lot of countries who want to be in China's good graces. NK is a historical legacy, an issue they want solved, but not in a way that puts a triggers a refugee flood in to China.

This is why China pass the latest UN sanctions, though only after reducing their severity. They want NK to move back from the brink, but they don't want to create a refugee crisis that they will have to clean up.

So obviously a shooting match would piss China off, but the US isn't starting shooting match out of nowhere, despite what some people on dakka seem to want.

China has gone to war with the US over North Korea before. China has gotten a lot stronger since that time and it hasn't really become more fond of the US. Why do you assume they would not go to war over NK again? NK might have become a liability to China, having a US ally and US troops on your doorstep is even more of a liability. Just ask Russia how much fun it is to be surrounded by the US. China has in the past been willing to go to great lengths to prevent such a scenario, and I do not think that willingness has decreased at all. It seems you assume that the Chinese will only care about their economy, but from the Chinese I have met I think they value their national pride and status as a great military power a lot more than their economy. They are not a country that suffers provocations lightly.
Also, it would not be smart to build an entire strategy towards NK based on an assumption of what China might or might not do. If the US takes an aggressive stance and China does decide to protect NK, the US will be in big trouble. China always remains a somewhat unpredictable factor. Any strategy would have to be made in cooperation with China. Without China's cooperation, a solution to the NK problem simply is not possible.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Jesus...

Would you tolerate any nation just lobbing a nuke-capable ICBM over your country?

Does it really matter? Over is not the same as into, the missile passed 500 miles above Japan (well into space), on a trajectory that couldn't possibly hit Japan. It's a symbolic statement to provoke everyone again, but in practical terms it was not even close to being a threat.

North Korean missiles aren't exactly what you'd call reliable. If the engines cut out half way or it veers off the intended trajectory, and hits a tower block or something even more interesting (say, the Imperial Palace), NK will suddenly have some very fast talking to do. You have to remember; these long range missile launches are experimental ones, they're gathering data as they go. That means that there's an inherent risk in firing them over a populated area. The sensible thing to do would be to fire them over other empty sea, but the NK leadership has clearly decided that the potential risk is worth it in order to make the political statement you allude to.

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2017/09/15/0200000000AEN20170915005653315.html
President Moon Jae-in condemned North Korea:
“In case North Korea undertakes provocations against us or our ally, we have the power to destroy (the North) beyond recovery"

It's worth noting too that the North Koreans have made a point to make TELARs for all of their missiles, including the Hwasong-2. So wherever it is launched from in any given test is where it probably wouldn't be launched from in an actual war.

 Ketara wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Jesus...

Would you tolerate any nation just lobbing a nuke-capable ICBM over your country?

Does it really matter? Over is not the same as into, the missile passed 500 miles above Japan (well into space), on a trajectory that couldn't possibly hit Japan. It's a symbolic statement to provoke everyone again, but in practical terms it was not even close to being a threat.

North Korean missiles aren't exactly what you'd call reliable. If the engines cut out half way or it veers off the intended trajectory, and hits a tower block or something even more interesting (say, the Imperial Palace), NK will suddenly have some very fast talking to do. You have to remember; these long range missile launches are experimental ones, they're gathering data as they go. That means that there's an inherent risk in firing them over a populated area. The sensible thing to do would be to fire them over other empty sea, but the NK leadership has clearly decided that the potential risk is worth it in order to make the political statement you allude to.

Well that's just it, isn't it. Their repeated open hostility to Japan coupled with their mind-numbingly irresponsible testing of ICBM's over that country makes a syntax debate irrelevant. Over/Into...really? This stupidity on the part of NK is on a wholly unique level. The question is, what is the response should one of these not-so-state-of-the-art ICBMs sputters out, or goes off course and lands on a friendly nation/asset? God forbid if said malfunction causes friendly casualties.

The chances of one of these rockets failing and causing meaningful damage or actual casualties in Japan is...likely to be lottery odds low. Not impossible, but extremely unlikely.

Not to excuse the socio-political tensions such tests obviously stir up, but the chances of one of these test rockets actually being a threat in and of themselves is pretty low.

But yeah, NK is poking the lion pretty hard here, taking full advantage of the fact they have Seoul by the cajones, testing the extreme limits of their boundaries.

 whembly wrote:
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2017/09/15/0200000000AEN20170915005653315.html
President Moon Jae-in condemned North Korea:
“In case North Korea undertakes provocations against us or our ally, we have the power to destroy (the North) beyond recovery"

Moon is already walking it back. http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2017/09/15/0301000000AEN20170915012251320.html

It's possible Moon made the earlier statement and ordered the ballistic missile test in a fit of anger. Poor choices, since neither do anything to help the situation. They demonstrate resolve, but a resolve to what?

I guess we'll see if Moon's determined to keep playing his one man good cop/bad cop routine. He best tread carefully since the Korean municipal and gubernatorial elections are rapidly approaching next summer and it's likely he won't have time to deliver on his original campaign platform.

 Ketara wrote:
North Korea just fired a missile at Japan.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41275614

Pardon my ignorance, but isn't that an act of war against Japan? Don't we have treaties that require us to come to their aid if they go all "fire the reflex cannon!!!" on NK??

Why don't you call Mr. Cruz, Mr. Cornyn and Mr. McCaul's offices and ask them to introduce a bill to declare war on North Korea?

It's your duty as an American citizen to express to your congressional representatives how you feel.

We are already at war. We are just under an armistice.

Has the USA formally declared war on NK? I don't know. I am under the impression it is a UN thing.

UN resolutions, not rescinded.

 Frazzled wrote:
UN resolutions, not rescinded.

Does that mean the USA has declared war on NK like it had declared war on Germany during WW2?

The functional difference between a peace treaty and an armistice are indistinguishable outside the semantics dome.

If you want to believe they aren't the same, then it's not an "act of war", you can't start a war that is already ongoing.

No. After FDR did his "day that will live in infamy" speech and dropped the mike, no president has tried to equal his greatness.

Basically Congress didnt want to bear that burden and responsibility (or blame) anymore and gave the President all those abilities for practical purposes, retaining control only through spending controls, which have become impossible to pull (or at least pull hard enough for Congress to abort ot majorly change a conflict) once the President committed the nation to a conflict.

Dan Carlin did a great podcast on that and how the existence of nuclear weapons fundamentally and by stealth basically rewrote the US Constitution and functionality of the US government by vesting the President with the power of their use and the timescales required for MAD deterrence and whatnot.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Dan Carlin did a great podcast on that and how the existence of nuclear weapons fundamentally and by stealth basically rewrote the US Constitution and functionality of the US government by vesting the President with the power of their use and the timescales required for MAD deterrence and whatnot.

To be fair, nuclear weapons do make having to go through congress to use them in self-defense impossible. You can't call an emergency session to get authorization to use them if enemies have already launched them. You'd all be dead before you even finished the phone call.

Right, which is why it developed the way it did, but it has changed the way the US govt operates, where the balance of power is, definitely how the US has gotten into every conflict post WW2 (especially including those without any Nuclear capable adversary), and why the US hasnt declared a formal war in over 70 years despite being involved in many conflicts.

Clearly, we need a nother vague and poorly worded AUMF on the subject! Perferably one that asks for open ended, forever war on the Korean peninsula.

That will show them!

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
UN resolutions, not rescinded.

Does that mean the USA has declared war on NK like it had declared war on Germany during WW2?

We never declared war, we are just there because the UN says we can be.

The same UN we hate and don't want us telling anything for any reason, I might add.

We are all at something of a stand-still, sort of like a pair of pawns facing each other with other pieces on their sides; whichever side strikes first puts itself at a decided disadvantage.

See, if we strike NK first, you really think China and Russia won't jump in? We would jump in if anyone else struck Mexico or Canada first. However, China doesn't want NK to actually strike first, since then world opinion can't feasibly tell the US not to use all of their toys.

As someone who was in the Army for 7 years, I don't want the US to strike first. What? Well, yea that fat turd needs to be thrown in a wood chipper but, if we strike first, it'll cause the US to have to tango with the whole world, which -will- cause a nuclear armageddon. The US got good toys, real good but, the world has 20,000 usable weapons, only 400 of which are needed to cause the extinction of every living thing on the planet except roaches and deep water weird gak.

 Easy E wrote:
Clearly, we need a nother vague and poorly worded AUMF on the subject! Perferably one that asks for open ended, forever war on the Korean peninsula.

That will show them!

Maybe you should draw a red line...

This is too good not to share...

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 3h3 hours ago
More
I spoke with President Moon of South Korea last night. Asked him how Rocket Man is doing. Long gas lines forming in North Korea. Too bad!

"Rocket Man"

Hey... Photoshop wiz... can you put Kim's pict in this/

I was thinking Elton John when you mentioned rocketman.

 Frazzled wrote:
I was thinking Elton John when you mentioned rocketman.

How's this?

tneva82 wrote:
If US sends in armed troops into China to enforce blockade you really think China will just pat their head for what amounts to act of war?

Um, lurching from vague plans about a blockade to deciding out of the blue that the blockade would be a US sole effort that involved occupying both Chinese (and presumably Russian) territory is not a sensible or a normal thing. You might as well start asking about what the Chinese will do when the US starts stealing Chinese citizens and eating them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
China has gone to war with the US over North Korea before. China has gotten a lot stronger since that time and it hasn't really become more fond of the US. Why do you assume they would not go to war over NK again?

The natures of China, NK and SK are massively different than they were seven decades ago. The relationships between each of them and their relationships with the US are even more different.

NK might have become a liability to China, having a US ally and US troops on your doorstep is even more of a liability.

Which is why an operation is likely to involve dealmaking between the US and China, where the interests of both parties are assured. For instance, the US might commit to only using airpower to supplement SK ground troops, with China given power and authority to control the subsequent administration and reconstruction of NK.

It seems you assume that the Chinese will only care about their economy, but from the Chinese I have met I think they value their national pride and status as a great military power a lot more than their economy. They are not a country that suffers provocations lightly.

No, I just understand that telephones exist and that world leaders use them. This leads me to conclude the most likely outcome is one where all the essential requirements of the major parties that can be reconciled will be.

Also, it would not be smart to build an entire strategy towards NK based on an assumption of what China might or might not do. If the US takes an aggressive stance and China does decide to protect NK, the US will be in big trouble. China always remains a somewhat unpredictable factor. Any strategy would have to be made in cooperation with China. Without China's cooperation, a solution to the NK problem simply is not possible.

You have lost track of the conversation and gotten yourself confused. tneva82 was talking absolutely, that military action by the US against NK would always produce a Chinese response. I was telling him that was a nonsense statement. China's relationship with NK is actually quite complex, there's historical legacy there, but NK is now a long way from there modern China is, and where China wants to go in the future. There are plenty of circumstances in which China would agree to remain on the sidelines in a US operation, the most obvious being in response to a NK missile attack, but there are others.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Pardon my ignorance, but isn't that an act of war against Japan? Don't we have treaties that require us to come to their aid if they go all "fire the reflex cannon!!!" on NK??

Whether it represents an act of war is, first and foremost, for the Japanese to decide. If they say it is and call for the support of their allies, then the US can decide for itself whether it agrees it was an act of war and what their treaty obligations would be.

Neither the Japanese nor the US seem to be saying it was an act of war, so that's that.

 RancidHate wrote:
See, if we strike NK first, you really think China and Russia won't jump in? We would jump in if anyone else struck Mexico or Canada first. However, China doesn't want NK to actually strike first, since then world opinion can't feasibly tell the US not to use all of their toys.

Not really seeing China has already noted they will defend NK against US first strike.

There was a article earlier in the year.

In it China stated that they had basically terms to a scenario where they would help defend NK.

That was that the US or allies mounted a preemptive attack on the north and that there was no act of war by the north.

They would not defend NK if they triggered the confrontation with the US and allies and where the original aggressor aka missile strikes on Guam etc.

Lastly, China has not had as good relations with kim 3 as the other two, kim 2 rocked the boat yes, and he did push it at times but never to the same degree and earlier insults kim 3 made to China would of been unthinkable.

Large segments of economic powerhouses within the world political community are anti-American enough that, sadly, it would take NK to kill 1,000 or more Americans on American national soil before the US could stomp NK without China and Russia getting directly involved.

It really does seem unreasonable that 1,000 Americans should've killed by NK before the USA can kill thousands upon thousands of North Koreans, and getting thousands of South Koreans killed as well.