|
Korea
Jan 7, 2018 19:36:21 GMT -5
Post by Marshall on Jan 7, 2018 19:36:21 GMT -5
If NK launched missiles our way, I doubt the accuracy would be good enough to hit Chicago without risking taking out the Hobo Haus instead.
|
|
|
Korea
Jan 7, 2018 21:43:41 GMT -5
Post by epaul on Jan 7, 2018 21:43:41 GMT -5
Today, yes. Three years from now? Five years from now? With ever evolving GPS guidance systems? Much of the technology needed is probably in your cell phone.
Nothing lasts forever, including U.S. policy. For fifty-plus-years we have convinced our allies in Asia that they did not need nukes (or even a functional army), that our nuke umbrella would cover them and keep them safe. (Israel wisely saw that this umbrella would begin to develop holes years ago and they prepared themselves.)
But, now that NK has developed delivery systems for its nukes, what is going through the collective minds of South Korea and Japan? Do they trust that the U.S. will risk a nuclear attack on its homeland in order to protect theirs? If North Korea's nuclear ability continues to develop three times faster than formerly confident but now much less so experts had predicted, do they fear that NK may use its regional nuclear advantage to intimidate and "blackmail" its non-nuclear neighbors economically and otherwise? (they should, if they don't)
I will say flat out that if I were South Korean or Japanese, no way in hell would I shove my head up my ass and smile while North Korea is developing nuclear attack capabilities while my own county passively does nothing to counter the threat. And no way in hell would I depend on, or even expect, the United States to continue to provide for my country's defense in perpetuity.
Nuclear non-proliferation is find and dandy, but North Korea has made it a sham in Asia. Only China can put the NK nukes back in the bottle (or make them die on the vine), but China has no reason to act unless it sees the consequences of its inaction. And these consequences are nukes in South Korea and Japan. These countries need their own teeth, not U.S. promises.
|
|
|
Korea
Jan 8, 2018 0:16:00 GMT -5
Post by Chesapeake on Jan 8, 2018 0:16:00 GMT -5
As much as I dislike so much about Trump, I think his unpredictability serves a good purpose here.
As things stand now, I wouldn't advocate a preemptive first strike. However, I rarely see discussion of other options besides the binary one of destroying N. Korea or not. In a way, I think we have them over a big barrel. They must seriously consider that an attack on any U.S. territory or military asset could lead to their annihilation.
But what if, for example, the U.S. were to respond to another test detonation or missile launch with a limited attack on one of the installations involved the test? I've seen this scenario referred to as a "bloody-nose option" in which we would demonstrate that we are serious about going the military route, and let them crank that into their thinking about continuing their nuclear development program.
Would they respond with a limited attack on one of our facilities, killing Americans and possibly South Koreans? Knowing that with Trump they would be risking a second, more devastating attack from the U.S.? Possibly a knockout punch? I seriously doubt they would respond in any significant way beyond ranting. Yes, escalations are inherently unpredictable, and many lives would be at stake. But they have to know there could be only one final outcome of such an enterprise, and it would involve the end of the regime.
One thing seems certain: any military action on our part seems unlikely as long as American dependents remain. Until they're gone, I think the North Koreans can rest easy that there will be no serious military action. And for that reason, I would remove the families ASAP - just to preserve the element of uncertainty.
|
|
|
Korea
Jan 8, 2018 0:51:25 GMT -5
Post by epaul on Jan 8, 2018 0:51:25 GMT -5
Removing American dependents is one thing that makes good sense for many reasons regardless what else is advocated. I would go further, but a good start is a good start. I agree fully. Get them out. ASAP.
|
|
|
Korea
Jan 8, 2018 1:03:52 GMT -5
Post by epaul on Jan 8, 2018 1:03:52 GMT -5
At Gus' Army Band graduation, a half-dozen of his classmates got assigned to South Korea. I remember thinking, what a great assignment! Some got to go play their horn in Hawaii, some in California or Florida, and some 30 miles or so from the Korean DMZ with Trump and Kim Jong waging their button fingers at each other.
(but then, a fellow Gus knew that was assigned to a base in South Korea offered Gus his condolences for having to go back to North Dakota and play trumpet in the tundra.)
|
|
|
Korea
Jan 8, 2018 3:43:31 GMT -5
Post by jdd2 on Jan 8, 2018 3:43:31 GMT -5
Today, yes. Three years from now? Five years from now? With ever evolving GPS guidance systems? ... But, now that NK has developed delivery systems for its nukes, .... Keep in mind that nukes and ICBMs are 50s-era technologies, not rocket science. (Well, it is rocket science, but it's only the mid-20th century version that's needed.) Also, what fool would rely on an american built & controlled GPS system when attacking the US? (Even for the US it's use is limited.)
|
|
|
Korea
Jan 8, 2018 4:14:52 GMT -5
Post by jdd2 on Jan 8, 2018 4:14:52 GMT -5
...now that NK has developed delivery systems for its nukes, what is going through the collective minds of South Korea and Japan? Do they trust that the U.S. will risk a nuclear attack on its homeland in order to protect theirs? If North Korea's nuclear ability continues to develop three times faster than formerly confident but now much less so experts had predicted, do they fear that NK may use its regional nuclear advantage to intimidate and "blackmail" its non-nuclear neighbors economically and otherwise? (they should, if they don't) I will say flat out that if I were South Korean or Japanese, no way in hell would I shove my head up my ass and smile while North Korea is developing nuclear attack capabilities while my own county passively does nothing to counter the threat. And no way in hell would I depend on, or even expect, the United States to continue to provide for my country's defense in perpetuity. Nuclear non-proliferation is find and dandy, but North Korea has made it a sham in Asia. Only China can put the NK nukes back in the bottle (or make them die on the vine), but China has no reason to act unless it sees the consequences of its inaction. And these consequences are nukes in South Korea and Japan. These countries need their own teeth, not U.S. promises. (Tho the power balances would probably evolve if the US were to back out of the region...) The problem with the above is that DPRK sees the US as the big satan imperialist power, not ROK or Japan. Neither of those countries is their sworn enemy of the last 60 years. Neither of those countries toppled Saddam, they didn't kill Gaddafi, they're not in Afghanistan, Syria, anywhere in Africa, and so on. The US is, and has demonstrated what it does by example. DPRK is not threatening to nuke Seoul or Tokyo, they're threatening to nuke Guam or the continental US. And if they have any sense, which I think they do, the smart thing militarily is not to destroy the other guy's cities until you've made sure that your opponent's military has been neutered. Instead of cities, the obvious targets would be US bases in Korea/Japan (or maybe just outside of St. Louis), rather than attacking random cities (tho Yokosuka and some other bases are fairly close to some big cities here). Reverse that a little. The average Korean or Japanese might instead be thinking: "Shit, the US is going to put us in the meat grinder just to protect itself?!?!!"
|
|
|
Korea
Jan 8, 2018 4:54:30 GMT -5
Post by jdd2 on Jan 8, 2018 4:54:30 GMT -5
... But what if, for example, the U.S. were to respond to another test detonation or missile launch with a limited attack on one of the installations involved the test? I've seen this scenario referred to as a "bloody-nose option" in which we would demonstrate that we are serious about going the military route, and let them crank that into their thinking about continuing their nuclear development program. ... One interesting option would be to take out one (or more) of their missiles just after launch, using an F-22 or 35 and a long-range air to air missile. This would work well for launches from their east coast, since our planes could even stand off a ways and maybe not enter DPRK airspace. Missiles just after liftoff are sitting ducks--they don't have jamming or countermeasures like an opposing fighter--and they're just going up, no evasive maneuvers. DPRK launches are not all that secret, the fact that our side has noticed "preparations" or "activity" is often telegraphed in advance. Some positives: --it's not a bomb blowing up on DPRK territory, it happened up in the air, no deaths/injuries. --it could be deniable (your rocket simply failed), they'd have to somehow prove what happened. --we would not be testing the THAAD system (and revealing any of its failings). Negative(s): --we'd be showing our cards. (they'd learn) --? --what would be their tit-for-tat?
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 8, 2018 6:06:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Korea
Jan 8, 2018 9:07:44 GMT -5
Post by Marshall on Jan 8, 2018 9:07:44 GMT -5
... But what if, for example, the U.S. were to respond to another test detonation or missile launch with a limited attack on one of the installations involved the test? I've seen this scenario referred to as a "bloody-nose option" in which we would demonstrate that we are serious about going the military route, and let them crank that into their thinking about continuing their nuclear development program. ... One interesting option would be to take out one (or more) of their missiles just after launch, using an F-22 or 35 and a long-range air to air missile. This would work well for launches from their east coast, since our planes could even stand off a ways and maybe not enter DPRK airspace. Missiles just after liftoff are sitting ducks--they don't have jamming or countermeasures like an opposing fighter--and they're just going up, no evasive maneuvers. DPRK launches are not all that secret, the fact that our side has noticed "preparations" or "activity" is often telegraphed in advance. Some positives: --it's not a bomb blowing up on DPRK territory, it happened up in the air, no deaths/injuries. --it could be deniable (your rocket simply failed), they'd have to somehow prove what happened. --we would not be testing the THAAD system (and revealing any of its failings). Negative(s): --we'd be showing our cards. (they'd learn) --? --what would be their tit-for-tat? Boys, boys, boys. That's an act of war; going into another country and blowing things up. Sheesh! Who would know ? ? ? Really ? ? ? The whole world would know ! If nothing else, our Braggart-in-Chief would be twittering about his wonderfulness. Our friends at the United nations would make proclamations about our lawless aggressive nature. Tit-for-tat? The possibility of NK firing a few howitzer rounds into South Korea is a distinct possibility. How happy do you think SK and Japan would be about all of that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Korea
Jan 8, 2018 9:34:17 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2018 9:34:17 GMT -5
It all comes down to the age old question. Is war better averted through shows of strength, resolve and threat of plausible action or by waffling, uncertainty and doubt. There's one sort of Orwellian concept that I would agree with. Peace through strength. www.steynonline.com/8367/darkest-hour
|
|
|
Korea
Jan 8, 2018 10:22:44 GMT -5
Post by Marshall on Jan 8, 2018 10:22:44 GMT -5
It all comes down to the age old question. Is war better averted through shows of strength, resolve and threat of plausible action or by waffling, uncertainty and doubt. There's one sort of Orwellian concept that I would agree with. Peace through strength. www.steynonline.com/8367/darkest-hour I would liken the present Korean problem to be more like the pre-WWI situation of the big world powers meddling in small town affairs, rather than Churchill standing up to Hitler.
|
|
|
Korea
Jan 8, 2018 10:55:38 GMT -5
Post by Marshall on Jan 8, 2018 10:55:38 GMT -5
The mouse that roared.
|
|
|
Korea
Jan 8, 2018 11:00:46 GMT -5
Post by epaul on Jan 8, 2018 11:00:46 GMT -5
[ The problem with the above is that DPRK sees the US as the big satan imperialist power, not ROK or Japan. Neither of those countries is their sworn enemy of the last 60 years. Neither of those countries toppled Saddam, they didn't kill Gaddafi, they're not in Afghanistan, Syria, anywhere in Africa, and so on. The US is, and has demonstrated what it does by example. DPRK is not threatening to nuke Seoul or Tokyo, they're threatening to nuke Guam or the continental US. And if they have any sense, which I think they do, the smart thing militarily is not to destroy the other guy's cities until you've made sure that your opponent's military has been neutered. Instead of cities, the obvious targets would be US bases in Korea/Japan (or maybe just outside of St. Louis), rather than attacking random cities (tho Yokosuka and some other bases are fairly close to some big cities here). Reverse that a little. The average Korean or Japanese might instead be thinking: "Shit, the US is going to put us in the meat grinder just to protect itself?!?!!" Ok, that fits with my plan. We get the hell out. If it is as you say, everyone's problem with North Korea is over. The Great Satan pulls its troops out of Korea and all is well. If, perchance, South Korea and Japan start to get a little queasy when we begin the five-year (or three if they prefer) withdrawal of our military forces in the region and ask for an extra jet or two (or maybe a couple nuke-equipped cruise missiles) to bolster their defenses in case NK decides to play once the cat is away, we can do that for them. But, if they think they are fine, then we're fine. 65 years of keeping troops in Korea is long enough. Too long. It is an absurdity we have come to think of as normal.
|
|
|
Korea
Jan 8, 2018 11:59:55 GMT -5
Post by Marshall on Jan 8, 2018 11:59:55 GMT -5
Yeah. That's pretty good, Paul.
The stickler for a generation has been limiting the nukes in the word. The idea of pulling out and giving our former protectorates the nuclear armaments perceived as necessary to counter their threats means we're proliferating nukes instead of controlling them. (Talk about weapons of Mass Destruction?) And once they are out of our control, how do we control them?
The world is a changing place. There are a number of nuclear powers out there. That cat is out of the bag. Still, we can't in any reasonable sense give anybody nukes. There's just too much downside to that.
So, maybe we pull out and give our buddies the means to robustly defend themselves with conventional technology. And we tell them that if they get into a fight that mushrooms over their head, we'll come back and give them a nuclear backup.
But then that means we're sitting on the sidelines in these conflicts with an automatic Get-Into-Jail card that can be played by any friend that over reaches his bounds and picks a fight with his neighbor he can't handle.
These are all scenarios to consider. But I agree it's time to pull back militarily. But nobody gets nukes from us. Just maybe a promise to come to their aid if somebody lays the nuclear trump card on them.
|
|
|
Korea
Jan 8, 2018 12:38:05 GMT -5
Post by kenlarsson on Jan 8, 2018 12:38:05 GMT -5
This has nothing to do with the current Korean situation but "A Canticle for Leobowitz" published in 1960 is a truly great SciFi novel about life in a post nuclear holocaust world..........................
|
|
|
Korea
Jan 8, 2018 13:41:20 GMT -5
Post by epaul on Jan 8, 2018 13:41:20 GMT -5
We had nuclear weapons based in South Korea from from the early sixties until the mid-80's. Bush Sr. announced the decision to gradually begin pulling our nukes out of South Korea as part of the plan to get North Korea to abandon its nuclear program. The last nukes left South Korea in conjunction with North Korea's signing of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty in 1985.
So, how did that work out?
North Korea is filling its pockets with nukes and will use them as chips in whatever poker game it decides to play. Use them, sell them, bluff and blackmail with them.
Only China has the ability to pull the plug on North Korea's nuclear game, and China has no reason to. Unless the game changes and China sees the other sides arming up and decides that isn't an Asia it wants to co-exist in. China needs a good reason to act. Currently, they have no compelling reason to do anything at all.
Now, if South Korea and Japan decide they are content to live in an Asia in which North Korea has nuclear weapons and they have none, that is fine. It is their call. If they feel secure that Big Daddy America will continue to look after them and protect them forever and ever, well, they have the right to believe whatever they want to believe.
On the other hand, if they want to send a signal that North Korea's very active nuclear weapons program has changed the deal they signed on to in 1985, if they want China to reconsider its acceptance of NK's nuclear weapons program, maybe it is time to up the stakes.
__________________________________________________
I am only predicting what I think will happen, and what I think will happen is that Trump will do nothing about NK's nukes because there is nothing rational he can do. It makes no sense to destroy half of South Korea in order to protect it, and that is the road every military action seems to lead down. And if Trump does nothing now, what likely American president will take even more difficult and costly military action later? (President Oprah, anyone?)
So, then what? Diplomacy? The same diplomacy that has led to a North Korea with an active nuclear weapons program while South Korea and Japan have nothing of their own to counter it?
And as the potential cost to the United States rises, its willingness to risk this cost in perpetual defense of South Korea is going to lessen... and pep talks won't change that.
It is time for a new plan. Koreafication. The U.S. will withdraw militarily from Korea over a five-year period. South Korea has to decide what kind and amount of assistance it wants from the United States to enable it to provide for its own defense. If they think they need some short rang tactical nukes (like they used to have before they were unilaterally negotiated away) to counter NK's nukes and to use as a bargaining chip with China to defang NK, we give them some. If they don't think they need them, then fine. It is their decision.
The only way to change the Korean game is to get out it and let them play it themselves.
|
|
|
Korea
Jan 8, 2018 14:47:00 GMT -5
Post by Marshall on Jan 8, 2018 14:47:00 GMT -5
The world has been a safe and sane place since the last nuclear bomb was dropped in a war,. . . . . . . . . , NOT !
How many bullets have been fired, and bombs dropped since 1945?
How many countries have been invaded by other countries?
How many genocides have been foisted on some population?
Nukes deter nothing. Little fish think if they have nukes, the big fish will leave them alone. The truth is fish eat fish! (And seaweed and stuff). The very real threat a country faces is from somebody else using conventional weapons in mass quantity to attack, invade, or destroy them. That's where the real threats are. Nuclear weapons are a last resort defense for nations. If you resort to using them, you've admitted defeat and you're striking back from the ruins of your previous life.
|
|
|
Korea
Jan 8, 2018 18:10:55 GMT -5
Post by jdd2 on Jan 8, 2018 18:10:55 GMT -5
"Giving" nukes to ROK or Japan sounds benevolent, but isn't really necessary. (tho it would sidestep that thorny NPT) Again, it's '50s-era technology, and DPRK, one of the world's backwaters, has been able to accomplish it. Both ROK and Japan have established nuclear industries, and probably several magnitudes more tech, industrial, and economic 'oomph' than DPRK. And you only have to glance at the headline to see what's lying around in the closet: foreignpolicy.com/2014/12/01/japan-has-enough-plutonium-to-make-thousands-of-nukes/
|
|
|
Korea
Jan 10, 2018 16:52:05 GMT -5
Post by Chesapeake on Jan 10, 2018 16:52:05 GMT -5
"Yes, you could use this against the Americans, but the world would curse your name for generations."
|
|