NORKS

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

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

Originally Posted by Nebe

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

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.

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

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

[scottw]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ns-north-korea

[JohnR]

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

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by scottw

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ns-north-korea

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

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by JohnR

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

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]

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

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)

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

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

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

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.

Originally Posted by wdmso

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]

So it is the USA's fault?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by JohnR

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
Tump is capt of the ship like all those before him only history will show who if anyone's is at fault .. we can't even agree what success even looks like



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?

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

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

[JohnR]

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

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by JohnR

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.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by JohnR

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

Interesting take, thanks for posting.