NORKS

[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.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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.

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

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Interesting take, thanks for posting.

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) .

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnR

NK is what it is, a Stalinist, authoritarian state, that oppresses its people and seriously threatens its neighbors.

that's a very narrow minded one-sided view

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by JohnR

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) .

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

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

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)

Originally Posted by wdmso

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 )

Beyond the claims they will Nuke Japan and the US?

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I can't find anything that suggest their Nuke program is offensive