North Korea readies missile, makes new threat.

[WestFo3]

It was obviously the oath guy who messed him up

---------------------------


No war plz. Im just about to turn 18

Yes sure it was. Oh and you forgot to add Lebron is white.

 

[camakazee]

Yes sure it was. Oh and you forgot to add Lebron is white.

 

[WestFo3]

Thats funny!!!! :chuckles::chuckles:

 

[KCOTT]

If you go to war with North Korea, you may also be signing up for a war against China; this war would be pretty significant.

Not entirely true. Doing so would be a bad idea for China, especially since they are primarily financing our War in Iraq by buying our war bonds. If you were at war with an enemy, would you pay him back while fighting him?

Haha that made me laugh pretty hard.

But their nuclear weapons won't even come close to hitting us. Also, I know a girl who is a clandestine agent. I spoke with her the first time Kim decided to flex his muscle. She basically said NKorea is a joke. She hinted that they China really has no allegiance to NKorea and wouldn't be in their best interest to side with them. Russia on the other hand...

I spoke to an Admiral once who put it best, "Kim Jong is like a spoiled kid. He tries to get everything he wants. When he gets out line, we just slap him on his hands and he goes back to his corner."

Kim just makes all these threats for bargaining leverage. North Korea is poor, not many valuable resources, and making threats in exchange for negotiations and goods is one of Kim's lame tactics.

And no, they're not really a threat (assuming he doesn't go even more crazy and actually use a WMD). I've heard this from many higher-ups.

Of course, they too have the great equalizer, nuclear weapons. Russia's combination of energy monopolies and nuclear weapons creates a very devastating foe.

To this date, a nuclear-armed nation has never attacked another nuclear-armed nation. I can't really see that happening unless WWIII has unfortunately broke loose.

Excellent post. Which is why the thought of Russia and China conjoining forces scares the hell out of me. And it's not out of the question it could happen. If China asked for us to pay them back, we'd literally be bankrupt.

I have a hard time seeing Russia and China cooperating with each other unless it's in an effort to undermine the US somehow, but right now that wouldn't be in the best interest of either party.

Everyone needs to understand, war with North Korea is strategically impossible without being willing to accept tremendous losses for our allies (South Korea and Japan) and probably resorting to a strategic nuclear engagement. There are several reasons that each of these concepts holds.

First, understand that North Korea probably has roughly 5 ready to go uranium gun-style nuclear weapons. They're previous test is believed to be a plutonium implosion-style device that either failed, was extremely low yield, or was an attempt to achieve boosting (enhancing a standard 15-20 kt device to 250+ kt also granting an arbitrary yield with minimal weapons-grade material). Either way, we know they have sufficient weapons-grade uranium and plutonium to have built at least 10 15kt devices. Building a gun-style nuke is within the means of a high school science class, given the materials, whereas the plutonium device requires far more precision, development, and the proper equipment.

Second, even without their nuclear capacity, (let's assume we destroyed it with a preemptive nuclear strike, or that our anti-missile batteries in S.Korea and off the coast destroyed them) N. Korea is still left with hundreds of thousands of ready-to-launch mortars aimed at S. Korea. Furthermore, the DPRK is known to have chemical agents at their disposal that could easily be mounted on their rather large and reliable medium range missile arsenal. The threat of a WMD attack against Japan is severe, in any scenario of military conflict against N. Korea.

Lastly, any air assault against N. Korea would bring about a full response against S. Korea. We're talking about tens of thousands of American troops (our 'tripwire') probably being overrun by half a million ready-to-die N. Korean soldiers (again, soldiers. not angry civilians wrapped in blankets with AK-47s).

While the United States could "win" a conflict against N. Korea, the losses could be far greater than those incurred in Vietnam, and there are almost no plausible scenarios in which nuclear weapons wouldn't be used by either side. Politically, it would end any Presidency and destroy any political party's hopes to govern for the next 20 years; therefore, it's very difficult to see any administration advocating an attack against North Korea. And to that end, it makes perfect sense why the North Koreans developed nuclear weapons in the first place. From the moment they developed their first nuclear warhead they were assured to never be bombed, and to always be relevant on the world stage. Now, if we want them to give us their nuclear material (yea right), then they're going to want to be paid -- billions.

IMO, the best strategy to use against N. Korea is to impose 100% international sanctions, including all forms food and medical supplies, and simply ignore them. Have high flying aircraft carriers jam all transmissions over their country with Flavor/Rock of Love, and other pop culture programs. Beyond that, starvation would quickly force them to into a regime change.

Uranium for food sounds good to me.

The US has a carrier battle group and airwing based in Japan. I don't think North Korea would want to deal with that.

A war with North Korea would be nothing near the catastrophic losses of Vietnam. Not even close. Even as "ugly" as this War in Iraq has been, it's a drop in the hat compared to that of Vietnam. These wars today are nothing compared to back then. You wouldn't even have to put boots on the ground, it's not like we would by trying to put them under our control.

The US military that fought in Vietnam is a completely different kind of military today than before. Huge difference. Air strikes back then were primarily uncoordinated and overall ineffective. Operation Rolling Thunder was hardly successful. Our F-4s had relied too much on missiles and weren't even equipped with guns in the beginning of the war, and were being shot down because the hostile aircraft would get so close that they couldn't use their missiles on them and had to use guns - guns, which they didn't even have (re: famous Top Gun quote, "I'm too close for missiles, I'm switching to guns.) Today, we would be able to bombard the shit out of North Korea with none or minimal losses. Their entire country is also completely accessible for bombardment by sea, our TLAMs courtesy of our destroyers, cruisers, and submarines would have them begging for mercy.

And plus, I would love to see someone take a stab against an Air Force F-22, or an entire carrier air wing. I wouldn't want to fight that.

China has some lofty investments in the US. That would be one of the main reasons why they haven't testes us just yet. If we went to war with China without any allies, it would be very scary for the U.S., as China out-populates the US more than 3-1.

Not only that, but their military itself is substantially bigger. Not necessarily better/stronger, but having the upperhand numbers wise has its benefits. I can confidently say we still have the edge in military technology, which helps in offsetting being outnumbered.

The one thing that really sucks from a strategic/tactical standpoint, is that any conflict with a nation from the far east will be primarily fought over there (hopefully). And you think the Cavs have a great home-court advantage...

We couldn't fight a war of attrition with China. It would have to be quick and simple. However that probably involves nukes and we all know if one person launches so does everyone else.

Yeah, nukes change the game. I wish they were never invented. The only way to gain an advantage of nuclear warfare is to strike first.

Make sure you sign up for the Selective Service, its the LAW! And the only way you would be in the Army if A. You signed up B. They instituted a draft like Vietnam.
And if we were attacked some how, i would join the Army in a heartbeat.

That's good to hear. I hated it when I was in college and everybody had so much discontent and a lack of loyalty for the US.

 

[gourimoko]

The US has a carrier battle group and airwing based in Japan. I don't think North Korea would want to deal with that.

A war with North Korea would be nothing near the catastrophic losses of Vietnam. Not even close. Even as "ugly" as this War in Iraq has been, it's a drop in the hat compared to that of Vietnam. These wars today are nothing compared to back then. You wouldn't even have to put boots on the ground, it's not like we would by trying to put them under our control.

The US military that fought in Vietnam is a completely different kind of military today than before. Huge difference. Air strikes back then were primarily uncoordinated and overall ineffective. Operation Rolling Thunder was hardly successful. Our F-4s had relied too much on missiles and weren't even equipped with guns in the beginning of the war, and were being shot down because the hostile aircraft would get so close that they couldn't use their missiles on them and had to use guns - guns, which they didn't even have (re: famous Top Gun quote, "I'm too close for missiles, I'm switching to guns.) Today, we would be able to bombard the shit out of North Korea with none or minimal losses. Their entire country is also completely accessible for bombardment by sea, our TLAMs courtesy of our destroyers, cruisers, and submarines would have them begging for mercy.

And plus, I would love to see someone take a stab against an Air Force F-22, or an entire carrier air wing. I wouldn't want to fight that.

You misunderstand my meaning. I don't mean to say, we'd be bogged down in North Korea as we were in Vietnam -- I'm saying North Korea would need to be nuked preemptively solely because they will use nuclear weapons to protect their territorial integrity and to establish a clear path to invade with ground troops. The immediate retaliatory response from the DPRK, in the event of any attack conventional or otherwise, would most probably wipe out much of our ground forces in South Korea, either with nuclear weapons or immense shelling; both will ultimately be followed by nearly hundreds of thousands of DPRK ground forces. We're talking 24-72 hours, not 5-10 years. There isn't much opportunity for the United States to disable enough of the DPRK's arsenal (including very well built short/medium range missiles, armed with chemical agents and potentially nuclear warheads) to prevent massive loss of life on all sides. Consider tens of thousands of Americans dying on the first day, let alone hundreds of thousands of Koreans, and who knows how many Japanese. If North Korea managed to deliver a single nuclear payload (imagine if it were boosted, 250kt) against a populated target in Japan, say Tokyo (let alone Seoul) - one the most densely populated cities on Earth, the losses (0-3 months, radiation/fallout) could be in the millions.

That's why I compared it to Vietnam. Simply because of the immense amount of causalities on all sides; especially the Koreans.

Also, I think we're defining the terms of this hypothetical war somewhat differently. I couldn't imagine any war with North Korea ending without occupation (can you imagine that?) or total annihilation of their capacity to make war (exceedingly difficult to eliminate an unknown number of nukes in undisclosed locations). We can't eliminate the weapons-grade material they have because, of course, it's been moved to underground locations. We have limited to no intelligence to work with; therefore, any preemptive strike against the DPRK would need to "finish the job," otherwise South Korea will be nuked. I just don't think it'd come out as clear cut as one might think, necessitating either the full involvement of all our forces (Vietnam) or the use of nuclear weapons (obviously preferable). Either way, South Korea would be devastated, Japan most likely won't be able to avoid an attack, and our ground forces currently stationed in South Korea would have little chance of surviving the initial DPRK response/invasion. No carrier group is going to stop that many ground forces.

p.s.
And concerning any war with China; such a thing isn't possible, at least, not a ground invasion. The idea is silly. Both the United States and China have nuclear weapons and ICBMs. You can't have ICBM's and a ground war -- the two are basically mutually exclusive. A war with China is over in 1 day with nearly a billion people dead or dying (including millions of Americans). So there can't really be a "war," per se, only a nuclear exchange.

 

[Chardon]

I always new that ****ing racist patrick starfish was in the Gay black jewish KKK . Look to the right. And is that Sponge bob on TV.

 

[KCOTT]

You misunderstand my meaning. I don't mean to say, we'd be bogged down in North Korea as we were in Vietnam -- I'm saying North Korea would need to be nuked preemptively solely because they will use nuclear weapons to protect their territorial integrity and to establish a clear path to invade with ground troops.

Why in the world would we need ground troops to just put Kim Jong back in his corner? That's way excessive, and too many lives to put in danger. Remember, military strikes against North Korea would only be if sanctions failed and the administration felt it was necessary to. I don't foresee any type of military offensive against them soon, especially on the scale of a ground invasion. A ground invasion is a huge decision with potentially devastating consequences for the worse. That would be the last thing the military would want to do, especially with resources stretched thin over Iraq and Afghanistan. If any military involvement happened, it would be nothing more than air strikes, which we've been doing to countries for years. There will be no ground invasion, that would be like using a shotgun to shoot a mosquito for this particular situation.

The immediate retaliatory response from the DPRK, in the event of any attack conventional or otherwise, would most probably wipe out much of our ground forces in South Korea, either with nuclear weapons or immense shelling; both will ultimately be followed by nearly hundreds of thousands of DPRK ground forces. We're talking 24-72 hours, not 5-10 years. There isn't much opportunity for the United States to disable enough of the DPRK's arsenal (including very well built short/medium range missiles, armed with chemical agents and potentially nuclear warheads) to prevent massive loss of life on all sides. Consider tens of thousands of Americans dying on the first day, let alone hundreds of thousands of Koreans, and who knows how many Japanese. If North Korea managed to deliver a single nuclear payload (imagine if it were boosted, 250kt) against a populated target in Japan, say Tokyo (let alone Seoul) - one the most densely populated cities on Earth, the losses (0-3 months, radiation/fallout) could be in the millions.

Jesus, I felt like I just read something from infowars. First off, this is all irrelevant because there will not be any ground invasion. Secondly, even if there was a ground invasion, it would be an amphibious offense led by support from a Navy Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG), with the brunt of the blow coming from the Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF), which has the Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF), and enough air, naval and logistical support to invade any country. North Korea is surrounded by water on both sides and we would utilize this to our advantage, why even bother putting South Korea at risk if Kim Jong is really that crazy to the point that he would use nuclear warfare or any other WMD. Thirdly why your theory is wrong, when and if we ever do put troops on the ground for whatever reason on their own soil, do you really think Kim Jong would nuke his own country? A fourth element why I find what you stated a little absurd is that there would be so much air cover and naval support that Kim Jong would never even get a nuke off. In something like this, we would bring the house. We would have Arleigh Burke destroyers and guided-missile cruisers (both capable of shooting down ICBMs) all up and down the coast on both sides, and not to mention a carrier or two with capable aircraft within striking distance on top of the ESG and MAGTF forces already in the theater. Let's not also forget that the Air Force would be bringing the metal rain from the nearest runway they could safely take off from and there would be submarines with TLAMs that North Korea would never even see. There would be UAV coverage and surveillance out the ass that we would know every move that they are up to. Man, I just got really excited writing all that. I dare Kim Jong to do something stupid, but he's not thaaat stupid. That's why the US doesn't feel compelled to do anything militarily because it's not needed, and Kim Jong knows he wouldn't stand a chance. We could be too soft on this, but the US doesn't really consider North Korea much of a threat, more like an annoying thorn in the side.

That's why I compared it to Vietnam. Simply because of the immense amount of causalities on all sides; especially the Koreans.

Also, I think we're defining the terms of this hypothetical war somewhat differently. I couldn't imagine any war with North Korea ending without occupation (can you imagine that?) or total annihilation of their capacity to make war (exceedingly difficult to eliminate an unknown number of nukes in undisclosed locations). We can't eliminate the weapons-grade material they have because, of course, it's been moved to underground locations. We have limited to no intelligence to work with; therefore, any preemptive strike against the DPRK would need to "finish the job," otherwise South Korea will be nuked. I just don't think it'd come out as clear cut as one might think, necessitating either the full involvement of all our forces (Vietnam) or the use of nuclear weapons (obviously preferable). Either way, South Korea would be devastated, Japan most likely won't be able to avoid an attack, and our ground forces currently stationed in South Korea would have little chance of surviving the initial DPRK response/invasion. No carrier group is going to stop that many ground forces.

p.s.
And concerning any war with China; such a thing isn't possible, at least, not a ground invasion. The idea is silly. Both the United States and China have nuclear weapons and ICBMs. You can't have ICBM's and a ground war -- the two are basically mutually exclusive. A war with China is over in 1 day with nearly a billion people dead or dying (including millions of Americans). So there can't really be a "war," per se, only a nuclear exchange.

I'd write more, but I'm tired of typing. There will be no ground invasion, no war. North Korea isn't worth our efforts and military strength. I wouldn't delve into this too much, it's just Kim Jong being Kim Jong. Next.


**oh yeah, a carrier battle group would destroy that many ground forces...you take your little north korean soldiers and i'll take my nimitz class carriers, arleigh burke destroyers, guided-missile cruisers, virginia class submarines, f-18 hornets to make it rain, and ea-6b prowlers to jam communications and any radar...a submarine alone would destroy them, what are ground troops going to do against a submerged submarine at a classified depth with a VLS and an arsenal of tomahawk cruise missiles? i dont think you understand what we are capable of...

 

[RonG]

I was stationed in Iwakuni Japan. I was Crash Crew, an aircraft firefighter. During my time in Iwakuni I was deployed to Po-hong Korea to do joint operations with the ROK (Republic of Korea) Marines, they are probably the most impressive military I have trained with out of the all of my time on active duty. Both countries are pretty poor, North Korea even more so, because of the hard-line they have taken over the years and the injunctions they can barley feed their people and power their country. Hunger and desperation can create a nasty situation. I realize some of you think this is just some D-bag flexing his muscles; I tend to go the other way.

He is the leader of a country who has extreme poverty, granted there government has put them there over the last 50 plus years but it is what it is. I don't want to go to war, no one really wants to go to war, but I can understand where his desperation comes from. You’re also talking about two countries that have an immense hate for each other in North and South Korea. I am not going to talk about what kind of war it would be; it is a mute point as of right now. Kim is looking for more concessions, everyone knows this. He needs massive infrastructure changes to keep is country afloat. How is he supposed to get that done with sanctions? Is he supposed to just bend on his knees and ask for help? On top of this, they are their own country yet the world is trying to impose it’s will upon it. Nuclear power is a real source of power through out the world, and every-one else is allowed to have it but N.Korea? If some one was telling the US that they weren’t allowed to use their Nuclear power plant’s we would just tell them to go get bent. Kim just doesn’t have that kind of pull. At some point the people of the world need to focus on what is going on in their own backyards and leave well enough alone. I may not agree with Kim’s methods but I can sympathize with his situation.

 

[gourimoko]

Why in the world would we need ground troops to just put Kim Jong back in his corner?

In case you forgot, they're already there and have been for decades. There are tens of thousands of U.S. troops currently stationed in the demilitarized zone. They're specifically there as a tripwire along with our treaty to defend South Korea.

That's way excessive, and too many lives to put in danger.

They're already there..... We have over 24,000 (assuming we withdrew 1/3rd of the 37,000 previously stationed) troops already deployed precisely to give us the political ability to defend South Korea in the event of an invasion from the DPRK. Historically speaking, the only reason such a force was left to defend the DMZ was to justify the use of nuclear weapons against North Korea in the event of an attack.

Remember, military strikes against North Korea would only be if sanctions failed and the administration felt it was necessary to. I don't foresee any type of military offensive against them soon, especially on the scale of a ground invasion.

Neither do I. If you read my initial post I clearly make that point.

A ground invasion is a huge decision with potentially devastating consequences for the worse. That would be the last thing the military would want to do, especially with resources stretched thin over Iraq and Afghanistan.

Of course, I said that in 2 posts. The United States would look to avoid a ground invasion at all costs.

If any military involvement happened, it would be nothing more than air strikes, which we've been doing to countries for years. There will be no ground invasion, that would be like using a shotgun to shoot a mosquito for this particular situation.

And here's where we differ. You assume that N. Korea doesn't respond. I don't know why you make that assumption, it seems kinda ridiculous to me - they're more than capable of responding with incredible force against South Korea. They've already stated repeatedly that they would use nuclear weapons in the event of American air strikes - and we're not shooting down every short-range missile they launch -- it's not happening.

Jesus, I felt like I just read something from infowars. First off, this is all irrelevant because there will not be any ground invasion.

No one's saying there will be... What are you talking about? I said numerous times, the United States wouldn't want to resort to a ground invasion, but would be forced to respond to hundreds of thousands of N. Korea troops storming across the DMZ. You're totally ignoring that point, and I can't understand why. My argument is that the only means of responding to such an attack is to use nuclear weapons, especially considering the North will use them first (if given the opportunity).

Secondly, even if there was a ground invasion, it would be an amphibious offense led by support from a Navy Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG), with the brunt of the blow coming from the Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF), which has the Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF), and enough air, naval and logistical support to invade any country.

The above seems like a non sequitur. I don't see the relevance or meaning in what you're trying to convey, at least pertaining to my argument that the United States would prefer a preemptive nuclear strike against North Korea rather than deal with a long-lasting ground war, preceded by a nuclear exchange in the DMZ, and for that very reason war is unlikely between the United States and the DPRK. Are you saying that the above forces would stop massive chemical and nuclear strikes and a multifaceted ground invasion from the DPRK? And for that reason the North would simply allow U.S. air strikes? I don't buy that. If the United States were to launch air strikes, the North would respond in full force - since everyone knows that, the situation escalates before it can start, making a nuclear exchange almost certain in any event of a conflict.

North Korea is surrounded by water on both sides and we would utilize this to our advantage, why even bother putting South Korea at risk if Kim Jong is really that crazy to the point that he would use nuclear warfare or any other WMD.

While it seems like you have a good understanding of our military deployment in the region, I don't think you fully understand the strategic situation between the United States, N/S Korea, and Japan. There is no way the United States can launch air strikes against the DPRK without expecting a response against the South -- it's not happening. Air strikes would lead to all out war, that's my point.

Thirdly why your theory is wrong, when and if we ever do put troops on the ground for whatever reason on their own soil, do you really think Kim Jong would nuke his own country?

No, he'd nuke Seoul, and the DMZ; along with massive artillery shelling, and the use of 1,000 tons of chemical weapons (and that's all that we know that he has). In that regard, there is little defense.

A fourth element why I find what you stated a little absurd is that there would be so much air cover and naval support that Kim Jong would never even get a nuke off. In something like this, we would bring the house. We would have Arleigh Burke destroyers and guided-missile cruisers (both capable of shooting down ICBMs) all up and down the coast on both sides, and not to mention a carrier or two with capable aircraft within striking distance on top of the ESG and MAGTF forces already in the theater. Let's not also forget that the Air Force would be bringing the metal rain from the nearest runway they could safely take off from and there would be submarines with TLAMs that North Korea would never even see. There would be UAV coverage and surveillance out the ass that we would know every move that they are up to. Man, I just got really excited writing all that. I dare Kim Jong to do something stupid, but he's not thaaat stupid.

The DPRK probably wouldn't deploy their nuclear payload entirely via airplanes. Most likely they would include artillery shells (DMZ), and short-range missiles (Seoul). Everything else you've mentioned is great and all, but I don't see how you're talking limited air strikes in one minute and the next it's "we would bring the house." It's totally contradictory. And do you know where the DPRK's nukes are, because it seems like you do? Not trying to sound facetious, but honestly, you're suggesting that their nuclear capacity could be destroyed from the air -- and I haven't heard any military analysis from an expert that suggested that was the case; in fact, all I've heard is the opposite.

That's why the US doesn't feel compelled to do anything militarily because it's not needed, and Kim Jong knows he wouldn't stand a chance. We could be too soft on this, but the US doesn't really consider North Korea much of a threat, more like an annoying thorn in the side.

No one is suggesting North Korea is a threat to the United States. But it's a serious threat to South Korea and Japan, to argue otherwise is insane.

I'd write more, but I'm tired of typing. There will be no ground invasion, no war. North Korea isn't worth our efforts and military strength. I wouldn't delve into this too much, it's just Kim Jong being Kim Jong. Next.

I agree. That was my point. There wouldn't be any war -- I don't know why you think I said there would be. I simply pointed out why air strikes are not possible, because they would bring about an immediate response from the DPRK that would cost tens of thousands (perhaps many more) lives. If you're disputing that, then we have a disagreement; everything else seems pretty irrelevant.

**oh yeah, a carrier battle group would destroy that many ground forces...you take your little north korean soldiers (gour: WTF?) and i'll take my nimitz class carriers, arleigh burke destroyers, guided-missile cruisers, virginia class submarines, f-18 hornets to make it rain, and ea-6b prowlers to jam communications and any radar...a submarine alone would destroy them (gour: ), what are ground troops going to do against a submerged submarine at a classified depth with a VLS and an arsenal of tomahawk cruise missiles? i dont think you understand what we are capable of...

And I think you are confusing two completely separate issues. You seem to be arguing that the United States would win any conflict with North Korea. You need to understand, that your assumption is not in dispute in the slightest; of course we'd win - but what would it take? I am arguing that any conflict between the DPRK and the United States would result in massive losses for South Korea, the United States, and perhaps even Japan. Furthermore, that any attack against the DPRK would be bring about a WMD response against S. Korea, Japan, and perhaps the western United States (Taepo Dong III). In your analysis you seem to leave out any possibility of a retaliatory attack from the DPRK. So again, I'll reiterate my point, the United States will not launch any attack whatsoever against North Korea because the consequences would be catastrophic.

It is clear that in any conflict with North Korea, U.S. forces will emerge victorious. The cost of
the victory is another matter – indeed, there is a tremendous risk of loss of lives and massive
destruction. Some military estimates put the civilian and military toll in the first day as high as 1
million.

You should read that report as it details the various military scenarios we're discussing. The report also illustrates the tremendous threat the DPRK poses in the event of a retaliatory response against any limited air strike.

 

[mixman]

wow, 14 quotes. Most impressive gour....

 

[KCOTT]

In case you forgot, they're already there and have been for decades. There are tens of thousands of U.S. troops currently stationed in the demilitarized zone. They're specifically there as a tripwire along with our treaty to defend South Korea.



They're already there..... We have over 24,000 (assuming we withdrew 1/3rd of the 37,000 previously stationed) troops already deployed precisely to give us the political ability to defend South Korea in the event of an invasion from the DPRK. Historically speaking, the only reason such a force was left to defend the DMZ was to justify the use of nuclear weapons against North Korea in the event of an attack.



Neither do I. If you read my initial post I clearly make that point.



Of course, I said that in 2 posts. The United States would look to avoid a ground invasion at all costs.



And here's where we differ. You assume that N. Korea doesn't respond. I don't know why you make that assumption, it seems kinda ridiculous to me - they're more than capable of responding with incredible force against South Korea. They've already stated repeatedly that they would use nuclear weapons in the event of American air strikes - and we're not shooting down every short-range missile they launch -- it's not happening.



No one's saying there will be... What are you talking about? I said numerous times, the United States wouldn't want to resort to a ground invasion, but would be forced to respond to hundreds of thousands of N. Korea troops storming across the DMZ. You're totally ignoring that point, and I can't understand why. My argument is that the only means of responding to such an attack is to use nuclear weapons, especially considering the North will use them first (if given the opportunity).



The above seems like a non sequitur. I don't see the relevance or meaning in what you're trying to convey, at least pertaining to my argument that the United States would prefer a preemptive nuclear strike against North Korea rather than deal with a long-lasting ground war, preceded by a nuclear exchange in the DMZ, and for that very reason war is unlikely between the United States and the DPRK. Are you saying that the above forces would stop massive chemical and nuclear strikes and a multifaceted ground invasion from the DPRK? And for that reason the North would simply allow U.S. air strikes? I don't buy that. If the United States were to launch air strikes, the North would respond in full force - since everyone knows that, the situation escalates before it can start, making a nuclear exchange almost certain in any event of a conflict.



While it seems like you have a good understanding of our military deployment in the region, I don't think you fully understand the strategic situation between the United States, N/S Korea, and Japan. There is no way the United States can launch air strikes against the DPRK without expecting a response against the South -- it's not happening. Air strikes would lead to all out war, that's my point.



No, he'd nuke Seoul, and the DMZ; along with massive artillery shelling, and the use of 1,000 tons of chemical weapons (and that's all that we know that he has). In that regard, there is little defense.



The DPRK probably wouldn't deploy their nuclear payload entirely via airplanes. Most likely they would include artillery shells (DMZ), and short-range missiles (Seoul). Everything else you've mentioned is great and all, but I don't see how you're talking limited air strikes in one minute and the next it's "we would bring the house." It's totally contradictory. And do you know where the DPRK's nukes are, because it seems like you do? Not trying to sound facetious, but honestly, you're suggesting that their nuclear capacity could be destroyed from the air -- and I haven't heard any military analysis from an expert that suggested that was the case; in fact, all I've heard is the opposite.



No one is suggesting North Korea is a threat to the United States. But it's a serious threat to South Korea and Japan, to argue otherwise is insane.



I agree. That was my point. There wouldn't be any war -- I don't know why you think I said there would be. I simply pointed out why air strikes are not possible, because they would bring about an immediate response from the DPRK that would cost tens of thousands (perhaps many more) lives. If you're disputing that, then we have a disagreement; everything else seems pretty irrelevant.




And I think you are confusing two completely separate issues. You seem to be arguing that the United States would win any conflict with North Korea. You need to understand, that your assumption is not in dispute in the slightest; of course we'd win - but what would it take? I am arguing that any conflict between the DPRK and the United States would result in massive losses for South Korea, the United States, and perhaps even Japan. Furthermore, that any attack against the DPRK would be bring about a WMD response against S. Korea, Japan, and perhaps the western United States (Taepo Dong III). In your analysis you seem to leave out any possibility of a retaliatory attack from the DPRK. So again, I'll reiterate my point, the United States will not launch any attack whatsoever against North Korea because the consequences would be catastrophic.



You should read that report as it details the various military scenarios we're discussing. The report also illustrates the tremendous threat the DPRK poses in the event of a retaliatory response against any limited air strike.

Jesus dude, I saw you responded but wasn't expecting an essay. Maybe we should just hire you to do our intel and to predict North Korea's behavior since you know everything? I mean, you truly have North Korea figured out. I'll let a few higher-ups know that we found our magic man.

I think you're giving North Korea too much credit, and at the same time having little faith in our capabilities. At least we can agree that a military strike won't happen, but some of the stuff you're predicting if a military conflict were to ensue seem excessive and unlikely. But whatever, I'll let you believe what you want. I can't prove anything to you, especially here over the internet and on a forum. Better safe than sorry, right? So fine, North Korea is incredibly capable. We will lose 10,000 people within the first few days. It will be similar to Vietnam. I know it's not true, but I can't convince you otherwise without compromising OPSEC. I have nothing more to say. And plus, I don't even know why I am bothering anymore because I know I'm right. I'll just take pleasure in knowing that you will be very surprised in what I said is true if a military conflict were to ever commence. But until then, I will always be wrong in your humble opinion.

But for the record, I can assure you North Korea isn't as discussed and concerned as another nameless country is in the pacific theater.

 

[Maximus]

But for the record, I can assure you North Korea isn't as discussed and concerned as another nameless country is in the pacific theater.

Can you give us a hint? Oh...wait....is it Ireland???

 

[gourimoko]

Jesus dude, I saw you responded but wasn't expecting an essay. Maybe we should just hire you to do our intel and to predict North Korea's behavior since you know everything? I mean, you truly have North Korea figured out. I'll let a few higher-ups know that we found our magic man.

Honestly, it's been pretty well discussed. I take it you didn't read the strategic scenario report I posted earlier from the Center for Defense Institute's think tank. Pretty much scenarios IV and V are what I'm talking about, scenario I is what you're talking about. Either way, several military analysts are quoted within that report and numerous others clearly stating that if North Korea did not respond in full force to any air strike, their credibility on the world stage would be reduced to nil. Even if the DPRK attempted a siege of Seoul, it would buy them tremendous capital in any armistice negotiations.

I think you're giving North Korea too much credit, and at the same time having little faith in our capabilities. At least we can agree that a military strike won't happen, but some of the stuff you're predicting if a military conflict were to ensue seem excessive and unlikely. But whatever, I'll let you believe what you want. I can't prove anything to you, especially here over the internet and on a forum. Better safe than sorry, right? So fine, North Korea is incredibly capable. We will lose 10,000 people within the first few days. It will be similar to Vietnam. I know it's not true, but I can't convince you otherwise without compromising OPSEC. I have nothing more to say. And plus, I don't even know why I am bothering anymore because I know I'm right. I'll just take pleasure in knowing that you will be very surprised in what I said is true if a military conflict were to ever commence. But until then, I will always be wrong in your humble opinion.

Just to clarify, I think you're confusing what I'm saying. My point is that no U.S. administration would commit ground forces to a war with North Korea because it would boil down to a situation similar to Vietnam. You see, I'm saying that's why any conflict with the DPRK wouldn't be like Vietnam, because we would try to avoid a ground invasion scenario. Only if Seoul were besieged would additional ground forces be necessary, and even then, the South Korean military (once readied) could handle a drawn out conflict. And since both sides realize this beforehand, it results in an escalation to the use of nuclear weapons. Why? Because the North has few other options to retaliate in full; and a few successful nuclear strikes (only within the DMZ, Seoul and a 20 mile radius at the midpoint between the two) may clear the path for a more successful (requiring massive U.S. intervention, rather than simply being pushed back or defeated at the DMZ) ground invasion into the South.

Look man, don't take my word for it. I've already quoted the Center for Defense Information. Here's an interesting report from Stratfor Intelligence Group (they also seem to think that if the DPRK responded to any air strike the outcome would be devastating for South Korea).

Summary

Whatever the political realities may seem to dictate after a North Korean nuclear test, an overt military strike -- even one limited to cruise missiles -- is not in the cards. The consequences of even the most restrained attack could be devastating.


Analysis

The reported detonation of a nuclear device by North Korea on Oct. 9 raises the question of potential military action against North Korea. The rationale for such a strike would be simple. North Korea, given its rhetoric, cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Therefore, an attack to deny Pyongyang the facilities with which to convert its device into a weapon and deploy it is essential. If such an attack were to take place, it is assumed, the United States would play the dominant or even sole role.

The USS Kitty Hawk is currently sitting in port at Yokosuka Naval Base, Japan. The USS Enterprise is operating in the Arabian Sea, while the Nimitz and the Stennis are conducting exercises off the coast of California. Except for the Kitty Hawk, none is less than a week's transit from the region. Nevertheless, naval cruise missiles are readily available, as are long-range strikes by B-2A Spirit stealth bombers and B-52H Stratofortresses and B-1B Lancers currently supporting NATO operations in Afghanistan out of Diego Garcia. A more robust strike package would take longer to deploy.

When U.S. military planners have nightmares, they have nightmares about war with North Korea. Even the idea of limited strikes against the isolated nation is fraught with potential escalations. The problem is the mission. A limited attack against nuclear facilities might destabilize North Korea or lead North Korea to the conclusion that the United States would intend regime change.

Regime preservation is the entire point of its nuclear capability. Therefore, it is quite conceivable that Kim Jong Il and his advisers -- or other factions -- might construe even the most limited military strikes against targets directly related to missile development or a nuclear program as an act threatening the regime, and therefore one that necessitates a fierce response. Regime survival could very easily entail a full, unlimited reprisal by the Korean People's Army (KPA) to any military strike whatsoever on North Korean soil.

North Korea has some 10,000 fortified artillery pieces trained on Seoul. It is essential to understand that South Korea's capital city, a major population center and the industrial heartland of South Korea, is within range of conventional artillery. The United States has been moving its forces out of range of these guns, but the South Koreans cannot move their capital.

Add to this the fact that North Korea has more than 100 Nodong missiles that can reach deep into South Korea, as well as to Japan, and we can see that the possibility for retaliation is very real. Although the Nodong has not always been the most reliable weapon, just the possibility of dozens of strikes against U.S. forces in Korea and other cities in Korea and Japan presents a daunting scenario.

North Korea has cultivated a reputation for unpredictability. Although it has been fairly conservative in its actions compared to its rhetoric, the fact is that no one can predict North Korea's response to strikes against its nuclear facilities. And with Seoul at risk -- a city of 20 million people -- the ability to take risks is limited.

The United States must assume, for the sake of planning, that U.S. airstrikes would be followed by massed artillery fire on Seoul. Now, massed artillery is itself not immune to countermeasures. But North Korea's artillery lies deep inside caves and fortifications all along the western section of the demilitarized zone (DMZ). An air campaign against these guns would take a long time, during which enormous damage would be done to Seoul and the South Korean economy -- perhaps on the order of several hundred thousand high-explosive rounds per hour. Even using tactical nuclear weapons against this artillery would pose serious threats to Seoul. The radiation from even low-yield weapons could force the evacuation of the city.

Moving north into the North Korean defensive belt is an option, but an enormously costly one. North Korea has a huge army and, on the defensive, it can be formidable. Fifty years of concerted military fortification would make Hezbollah's preparations in southern Lebanon look like child's play. Moving U.S. and South Korean armor into this defensive belt could break it, but only with substantial casualties and without the certainty of success. A massive stalemate along the DMZ, if it developed, would work in favor of the larger, defensive force.

Moreover, the North Koreans would have the option of moving south. Now, in U.S. thinking, this is the ideal scenario. The North Korean force on the move, outside of its fortifications, would be vulnerable to U.S. and South Korean airstrikes and superior ground maneuver and fire capabilities. In most war games, the defeat of North Korea requires the KPA to move south, exposing itself to counterstrikes.

However, the same war-gaming has also supposed at least 30 days for the activation and mobilization of U.S. forces for a counterattack. U.S. and South Korean forces would maintain an elastic defense against the North; as in the first war, forces would be rushed into the region, stabilizing the front, and then a counterattack would develop, breaking the North Korean army and allowing a move north.

There are three problems with this strategy. The first is that the elastic strategy would inevitably lead to the fall of Seoul and, if the 1950 model were a guide, a much deeper withdrawal along the Korean Peninsula. Second, the ability of the U.S. Army to deploy substantial forces to Korea within a 30-day window is highly dubious. Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom both required much longer periods of time.

Finally, the U.S. Army is already fighting two major ground wars and is stretched to the breaking point. The rotation schedule is now so tight that units are already spending more time in Iraq than they are home between rotations. The idea that the U.S. Army has a multidivisional force available for deployment in South Korea would require a national mobilization not seen since the last Korean War.

It comes down to this: If the United States strikes at North Korea's nuclear capabilities, it does so placing a bet. And that bet is that North Korea will not respond. That might be true, but if it is not true, it poses a battlefield problem to which neither South Korea nor the United States will be able to respond. In one scenario, the North Koreans bombard Seoul and the United States makes a doomed attempt at shutting down the massive artillery barrage. By the time the guns are silenced -- even in the best-case scenarios -- Seoul will be a mess. In another scenario, the North Korean army executes an offensive of even minimal competence, which costs South Korea its capital and industrial heartland. The third is a guerrilla onslaught from the elite of the North Korean army, deployed by minisubs and tunnels under the DMZ. The guerrillas pour into the south and wreak havoc on U.S. military installations.

That is how a U.S. strike -- and its outcome -- might look. Now, what about the Chinese and Russians? They are, of course, not likely to support such a U.S. attack (and could even supply North Korea in an extended war). Add in the fact that South Korea would not be willing to risk destroying Seoul and you arrive at a situation in which even a U.S. nuclear strike against nuclear and non-nuclear targets would pose an unacceptable threat to South Korea.

The United States has two advantages. The first is time. There is a huge difference between a nuclear device and a deployable nuclear weapon. The latter has to be shaped into a small, rugged package able to be launched on a missile or dropped from a plane. Causing atomic fission is not the same as having a weapon.

The second advantage is distance. The United States is safe and far away from North Korea. Four other powers -- Russia, China, South Korea and Japan -- have much more to fear from North Korea than does the United States. The United States will always act unilaterally if it feels that it has no other way to protect its national interest. As it is, however, U.S. national interest is not at stake.

South Korea faces nothing less than national destruction in an all-out war. South Korea knows this and it will vigorously oppose any overt military action. Nor does China profit from a destabilized North Korea and a heavy-handed U.S. military move in its backyard. Nevertheless, if North Korea is a threat, it is first a threat to its immediate neighbors, one or more of whom can deal with North Korea.

Ultimately, North Korea wants regime survival. In the end, allowing the North Korean regime to survive is something that has been acceptable for over half a century. When you play out the options, the acquisition of a nuclear device -- especially one neither robust nor deployable -- does not, by itself, compel the United States to act, nor does it give the United States a militarily satisfactory option. The most important issue is the transfer of North Korean nuclear technology to other countries and groups. That is something the six-party talk participants have an equal interest in and might have the leverage to prevent.

My entire argument is pretty much what the above analysis is pointing out. An air strike against the DRPK is simply not possible. Even if we wanted to, which I'm sure we do, we can't. We haven't been able to since the end of the Korean War, and we certainly can't now. The cost that South Korea would inevitably end up paying is far too great to justify any engagement. Isolation and sanctions are the only recourse. That's my argument.

 

[ChicagoCavFan]

This is looking like the Cuban Missile Crisis....

(CNN) -- North Korea says it will attack the Japanese military and "major targets," if Japan shoots down a rocket Pyongyang plans to launch in the coming days, North Korea's state-run news service, KCNA, reported Thursday.


Japan recently deployed its missile defense system in anticipation of North Korea's planned rocket launch.

1 of 2 "If Japan recklessly 'intercepts' [North Korea's] satellite for peaceful purposes, the [Korean People's Army] will mercilessly deal deadly blows not only at the already deployed intercepting means but at major targets," KCNA reported.

Japan recently mobilized its missile defense system in response to the planned North Korean launch, Japanese officials said. The move, noteworthy for a country with a pacifist constitution, is aimed at shooting down any debris from the launch that might fall into Japanese territory.

U.S. Navy ships capable of shooting down ballistic missiles have also been moved to the Sea of Japan, a Navy spokesman said.

The threat of retaliation comes as North Korea has begun fueling its long-range rocket, according to a senior U.S. military official familiar with the latest U.S. intelligence on the matter.

The fueling signals that the country could be in the final stages of what North Korea has said will be the launch of a satellite into space as early as this weekend, the senior U.S. military official said Wednesday.


Other U.S. military officials said the top portion of the rocket was put on very recently, but satellite imagery shows a shroud over the stage preventing a direct view of what the stage looks like.

The officials said the satellite payload appears to have a "bulbous" cover, which could indicate there is a satellite loaded on it. Such a cover protects a satellite from damage in flight.

While the sources did not know for sure what the payload is, they did say there is no reason to doubt it is a satellite as indicated by North Korea.

Pyongyang has said it will conduct the launch sometime between April 4 and April 8. It's a launch that may violate a 2006 United Nations Security Council resolution.

Resolution 1718 "[d]emands" that North Korea "not conduct any further nuclear test or launch of a ballistic missile."

"It raises questions about their compliance with the Security Council Resolution 1718," U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said last week. "And if they persist and go forward, we will take it up in appropriate channels."

Pentagon officials worry less about the payload and more about the launch itself, saying any kind of launch will give the North Koreans valuable information about improving their ballistic missile program.

"I don't know anyone at a senior level in the American government who does not believe this technology is intended as a mask for the development of an intercontinental ballistic missile," U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Sunday.

Defense analysts say the same rocket could be used to push a satellite into space or deliver a nuclear warhead.

Gates noted that while the United States believes it is North Korea's "long-term intent" to add a nuclear warhead to any such rocket, he "personally would be skeptical that they have the ability right now to do that."


Gates said that the U.S. military could shoot down "an aberrant missile, one that was headed for Hawaii ... or something like that, we might consider it, but I don't think we have any plans to (do) anything like that at this point."

He does not believe North Korea currently has the technology to reach Alaska or Pacific coast.


http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/04/02/north.korea.rocket/index.html

 

[KCOTT]

came across this article this morning

Experts Explain Why North Korea Wants To Conduct Long-Range Missile Test

North Korea is planning to launch a rocket between April 4 and April 8. Pyongyang says the rocket will launch a communications satellite into orbit, but the United States, Japan and South Korea believe the launch is a cover for a long-range missile test.

Experts say there are several possible reasons why North Korea is launching a rocket. Jack Garrity, the executive director of the Asia Society, in Washington, says the government in Pyongyang wants to send a message overseas. "The prime objective is to show their independence to the outside world, and to make a point of undermining both the spirit and agreements of the six-party talks," he said.

Nicholas Eberstadt, a researcher at the American Enterprise Institute, believes there is also a domestic political reason for the launch. "(launching the rocket) stands to indicate the success of the regime's military-first politics program, and to strengthen the position of certain groups within the government," he said.

And there is likely a military incentive for the North to conduct this test, according to Gordon Flake, executive director of the Washington-based Mansfield Foundation. "It would introduce a lot more complexity into the security calculations for countries like the United States or China or others dealing with North Korea, because it extends the reach of their delivery capacity. That delivery capacity is far more important today than it was a couple of years ago, because of North Korea's successful nuclear test," he said.

The rocket North Korea is expected to launch in the coming days is theoretically capable of reaching the western United States.

South Korea, Japan and the U.S. say the launch will be a provocative attempt to advance Pyongyang's ability to deliver nuclear warheads with ballistic missiles. Those three countries and the European Union also say it will violate a U.N. resolution.

North Korea's Asian neighbors and the United States have been considering how to respond, and there are no easy answers.

South Korea has said that if the launch takes place, an international response will be inevitable. Japan says it will shoot down the rocket if it appears to threaten Japanese territory.

And 16 U.S. lawmakers, all minority Republicans, say they want President Barack Obama to authorize use of the U.S. missile defense system to shoot down any dangerous debris from the launch.

North Korea, meanwhile, says it will shoot down any U.S. spy planes if they violate Pyongyang's airspace, and Gordon Flake says attempts to intercept the North Korean rocket would only inflame the situation. "To pre-emptively shoot a North Korean missile on the launch pad, or to shoot it down over North Korean soil in initial stages, would be considered to be an act of aggression, I think, definitely by North Korea, but probably also by Russia and China," he said.

Flake says a pre-emptive shootdown would draw attention away from the North Korean violation of U.N. Security Council sanctions, and would highlight perceived U.S. or Japanese aggression.

Eberstadt, however, says the U.S. should shoot down the rocket or its debris if it can. "If our missile defense capabilities are adequate to destroy the launching missile, we should definitely destroy it. That would be a fine signal to our allies and to the DPRK that the ratching up of threats is not always necessarily credible by the Kim Jong-Il regime," he said.

Another question is how a North Korean rocket test would affect the six-party talks on ending Pyongyang's nuclear program. Jack Garrity says it might add urgency to the negotiations. "If anything, it probably gives a little bit of strength to the six-party talks, because all of the countries concerned realize that this is an ongoing issue and among the six parties, nobody really wants to see this occur, except for the North Koreans," he said.

But Eberstadt says the six-party talks are dead. "The six-party talks are pathetic. The six-party talks have been a sort of a zombie for the last four years, while the North Korean government has moved from one nuclear stage to a more advanced nuclear stage to yet a more advanced nuclear stage," he said.

Two previous Taepodong missile launches were unsuccessful, and Eberstadt and Garrity agree that a failed attempt would be a large setback for Pyongyang's nuclear program.

The United States has warned North Korea that it would face consequences if it launches a missile. But the Obama administration also says a path to return to international negotiations on an aid-for disarmament deal remains open.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-04-02-voa1.cfm?rss=war and conflict

it will be interesting to see how this weekend pans out