NORKS
 

Lets have a little discussion. If North Korea is within a couple years of delivering nukes on ICBMs that can reach much of CONUS - what are the options?

A big problem with regimes that are run by tyrants who rule strictly by force, and whose mission is solely to maintain power, like Saddam or Assad, or Kim Jong-un, and who don't have a concern or plan for the well being of their populace, is that they will do anything to preserve that power. They cannot step down, because that will mean that their life is over. So they want nuclear capability to protect and preserve their power, and ultimately their life.

And there will probably be no reason for them not to use that nuclear power if they think that the end of their regime is threatened. The end of their life, for them, is the end of the world.

It would be nice if the North Korean Military could take Kim out. Some kind of sabotage, maybe by paying millions or billions for some inside the regime to get rid of him. China would be good at a clandestine overthrow of the Nork regime. If not . . .

No good options.

either way this goes many lives will be lost for sure. best case would be an internal overthrow by any moderates that secretly exist in his so called gov't. i'm sure the people would embrace this.

There are no good options - we are perhaps 20 years too late for that.

Something kicks off the death toll will be unlike anything seen in the last 30 years, particularly in Seoul. But if allowed to percolate, it may be something not seen since ens of WW2

Tough calls

Whats to say his nukes are offensive that seems to be the argument for attacking him 1st I see the same dynamic with Iran .

I know some people dont like to hear this but our influence and actions over the decades towards many of theses countries have directly contributed to theses countries seeking nukes as a deterrent for what they see the USA and many western countries as interventionist. even China is expanding into the sea of china based on this

North Korea conventional forces are a bigger threat then their nuke program is now

But right now neither Trump or Kim looks like either one is going to back down. but Kim has the Advantage he can provoke with out attacking just test launch some missiles get Trump to respond with a armed strike like in Syria and he wins in the short term and a lot of people perish .. and the US wont come out this with just a bloody nose But this administration has limited choices seeing they dont like Diplomatic solutions. and neither does their base

Here's an idea. Stop provoking them and just leave them alone.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

obviously best if there is a coup but prob. every moderate has already been killed w/an anti aircraft gun plus they are all so brainwashed. If that does happen though, we would prob. have to spend lots of $ to help modernize their country so they see the benefits in cooperating. We've all seen the night time pictures of the area at night w/no lights in NK. Supposedly the pop. is much shorter than in SK bc of the years of malnutrition.

Diplomatic populations have been pi$$ed on by the NORKS since Bill Clinton. Twenty Four years



Obama didn't provoke them for 8 years and the NORKS shelled SK, sunk a ROK Navy Ship, and worked on their capacity to launch Nukes/Chem to Japan and eventually US.

Yes - the moderates were surely killed. Can't count on a Coup or you could say the last 15 years we were waiting on a coup

Admiral Stavridis (ret & very smart guy) had an interesting point - Don't Cross the Streams Ray

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-news/watc...s-928405059929

The USA are not the only players in this game , this is not a us against them.. the North hasn't done much in 24years it has been a carrot and stick approach conducting test does not equal weaponizing a warhead
and diplomacy isn't about absolutes

its clear Thru Trump's Administration see's only absolutes there is no balance in any of his approaches foreign or domestic policy

We are dealing with a regime who will shoot back , And will see who still has the stomach for a military solution if the north gets in a lucky punch and nothing changes .. what then ..

if we strike and dont take out their capabilities to make a bomb we run the risk of increasing the speed in which the North will weaponize a war head , and for ever remove a diplomatic option

But history shows why we are here today.. the US put nukes in South Korea to blunt the Russian and Chinese (unintended consequences)


Korean Armistice Agreement
United States abrogation of paragraph 13(d)[edit]
File:1958-02-06 Atomic Weapons come to Korea.ogv
Deployment of U.S. atomic weapons in Korea in 1958
Paragraph 13(d) of the Armistice Agreement mandated that neither side introduce new weapons into Korea, other than piece-for-piece replacement of equipment. In September 1956 the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Radford indicated that the U.S. military intention was to introduce atomic weapons into Korea, which was agreed to by the U.S. National Security Council and President Eisenhower.[33] However paragraph 13(d) prevented the introduction of nuclear weapons and missiles.[34] The U.S. unilaterally abrogated paragraph 13(d), breaking the Armistice Agreement, despite concerns by United Nations allies.[35][36][37] At a meeting of the Military Armistice Commission on June 21, 1957, the U.S. informed the North Korean representatives that the United Nations Command no longer considered itself bound by paragraph 13(d) of the armistice.[38][39] In January 1958 nuclear armed Honest John missiles and 280mm atomic cannons were deployed to South Korea,[40] a year later adding nuclear armed Matador cruise missiles with the range to reach China and the Soviet Union.[36][41]

The U.S. believed that North Korea had introduced new weapons contrary to 13(d), but did not make specific allegations.[42] North Korea also believed the U.S. had introduced new weapons earlier, citing Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission inspection team reports for August 1953 to April 1954.[33][43]

North Korea denounced the abrogation of paragraph 13(d).[37] North Korea responded militarily by digging massive underground fortifications resistant to nuclear attack, and forward deployment of its conventional forces so that the use of nuclear weapons against it would endanger South Korean and U.S. forces as well. In 1963 North Korea asked the Soviet Union and China for help in developing nuclear weapons, but was refused.[36]

Interesting piece. VDH maps out a lot of the problems well.

True, China and to a lesser extent Russia, benefitted from this wedge between Korea / US / Japan. Except nor PRC does not benefit as much as it once did.

In 24 years NK has added thousands of artillery pieces and probably thousands of SRCM within range of Seoul.

In 24 years NK has stated numerous times they will rain fire on SK, JP, USA. They are not closer to that capability than any time before.

In 24 years NK has won some battles of appeasement and lost others - all the time getting closer to where we are today. (ArmsControlWonk - a left leaning site - has a lot of good Open Source info on where there programs may be)


Of course this is Trump's fault. The balance, ironically, may be McMasters and Mattis


Tough call - no I do not want to see this go hot. You will probably see 200k+ South Korean dead, particularly around Seoul, if you only suffer 1% dead from the greater Seoul Metro area. If it does not go nuclear.

If NK was somehow able to deliver nukes within 100 miles of its border and were to go nuclear just in SK maybe 3-5 million?

This is if it goes nuclear on the Korean Peninsular, not including JP, US, etc. But still before mating warheads to ICBMs.

So it is the USA's fault?

You'd just leave him alone to starve to death, millions of his citizens? Man...Read one of the few books out there, about what it's like there.

In North Korea, if they catch you trying to get on the Internet, they put three generations of your family in concentration camps. They routinely kidnap citizens from nearby countries to train their spies in the customs of those countries (imagine the horror in that, for a second, if someone you cared about was kidnapped in that way).

You hear the phrase "worse than Hitler" a lot, usually in reference to George Bush 43. This guy may actually be worse. Possibly not in scale, but in terms of the magnitude of his evil. At least Hitler wanted all Ayrians to thrive, fatty in North Korea wants to starve everyone. It's time for him to get what's coming to him, though I can't even conceive of what would be a fair punishment, maybe getting eaten alive by hogs.

No easy options. Putting a bullet in his head might not be a bad place to start. Unlike Syria, there's nothing to indicate (that I know of) that something far worse could take his place.

Have to get China on board, that's where all of North Korea's money comes from, selling their mineral resources to China.

Time to get rid of the UN, it serves no purpose. They can't do anything to contain this guy, and now they put SAUDI ARABIA on the women's rights committee. Not an exaggeration.

No easy options. Not with all the citizens of Seoul nearby, possibly so close that even that incompetent fat pervert could lob a missile that far before it inevitably drops from the sky.

Say what you want about Trump. He's not a huge fan of kicking the can down the road like the previous few administrations, who collectively did very, very little to help the poor souls stuck there.

Only ugly choices. Putting our heads in the sand and hoping for the best, will likely not work much longer.

What I said was unentional consequences .. the America saw north Korea as weak. But yes the Unite states
is responsible for its actions(brining nukes to south korea) as is north korea responsibel for their response but many American's don't know the whole story . And think it's just one sided

USA brought Nukes to Turkey, Europe, and ships everywhere (we can neither confirm nor deny presence of nuclear" yada yada yada as a buffer to PRC and USSR. The soviets had nukes a few miles away in Vladivostok

As far as one sided, we have been inconsistent (democracies are) and NORKS have been varying levels of Crazy, especially as their advantages (less nukes) have attenuated compared to RoK

BTW - Interesting piece that spells out a probable outcome with caveats (not including how PRC responds) but even if the DPRK was defeated it will be at terrible cost to South Korea and its civilians:

http://www.realcleardefense.com/arti...an_111241.html

As I said their conventions forces are a bigger threat then their Atomic one

In 24 years NK has added thousands of artillery pieces and probably thousands of SRCM within range of Seoul. as a direct result of the US placing nukes in the south


I completely disagree As far as one sided, we have been inconsistent (democracies are)

Not sure but 3 Republican administrations and 2 dem adminstrations the record does not support 1 sided being inconsistent.. there is plently of blame to pass a round R and D

Ronald Reagan was in office in 1986 when plutonium was first produced in a North Korean reactor. They continued their program under President George H.W. Bush, producing enough plutonium to make 1–2 bombs.

Bill Clinton’s presidency, North Korea froze its nuclear production, though it continued testing missiles until deterred by American pressure.

In 2002, President George W. Bush took a strong stance against North Korea by including them in the “Axis of Evil” with Iran and Iraq. A year later, Pyongyang restarted their reactor and by 2005 produced another 15 kg of weapons grade plutonium. In 2006, North Korea is believed to have had between 4 and 13 nuclear bombs and tested a nuclear weapon for the first time.

Interesting take, thanks for posting.

NK is what it is, a Stalinist, authoritarian state, that oppresses its people and seriously threatens its neighbors. It seems like you are making excuses for them / blaming the US.

This is what you are looking for:

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron


It was, and aligns pretty well with conventional thinking. Norks do not likely have the necessary and functional kit to defeat the south but they will kill/wound casualty levels not seen since disasters / wars (Darfur, etc) .

that's a very narrow minded one-sided view :rotflmao:

Far from it.. just making the point we have had an active roll and the US bear some responsibility.. Just like Iran that didn't happen in a vacuum.. our finger prints are all over that as well..

John are you suggesting the US is an innocent participant since 1956 the story didn't just start in 1985 as the link suggest I am just taking the long View

I can't find anything that suggest their Nuke program is offensive (not to say thats not the direction they wish to go but so far that dosnt seem to be the case )

A bomb is useless to North Korea — as an offensive weapon or as a deterrent — unless the country can make a convincing case that it has a reliable delivery system.

and they haven't done that as of yet

not sure what the correct answer is

But I see Trump statements and Kims statements.. like running down hill its easy at 1st until momentum kicks in and thats when bad things start to happen

Not at all but at great cost the US did stop the Norks from rolling over their southern brothers, preventing the unity under the banner for the social workers paradise united (we see how well that worked)

Beyond the claims they will Nuke Japan and the US?


A bomb is very useful to the Norks, both as an economic generator (see Iran and Syria in Deir ez-Zo 2007) and as a strong force behind his tantrums. They are getting closer and closer.

I wish I knew the answer too

:huh: