View Poll Results: What is the best course of action in dealing with North Korea?

Voters
14. You may not vote on this poll
  • Full scale preemptive military strike

    4 28.57%
  • Limited preemptive military strike

    0 0%
  • Appeasement in the form of recognition and aid

    1 7.14%
  • Strategic Patience - Neither negotiation nor military action

    9 64.29%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 10 of 37 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516171819 ... LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 547

Thread: The Korean Dilemma

  1. #136
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Posts
    2,664
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    I sure hope so...but I don't think that will be the case.
    If the NKs get away blackmailing the US, Iran would restart its nuke program, prompting KSA to build their own nuke. Asad will try the same. SK and Japan would get their own nuke. Vietnam would want one. Heck, even Somalian pirates would want one too. Letting NK have nukes = proliferating nukes.

    In the polls, the second option is limited preemptive military strike. Does it mean drop a grenade? ;-)))

  2. #137
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    761
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    Yes sir we have, but we've also seen how it can work in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we have no Douglas MacArthur today, nor a Hirohito to command his people to lay down their arms and surrender.
    The point I was trying to make is that fanaticism ain't going to win them their war.

    However, I submit that the war's aftermath ain't our problem. It's Seoul's problem. If war starts, Seoul is going to take the DMZ. That's a given. If Tiny Kim is to survive, then at least 50% of his army must survive the onslaught, enough for him to maintain order in the north. Frankly, I cannot see how that could happen. Seoul must hit hard, hit fast, and keep on hitting until the threat to Seoul is gone and that means not allowing the NKs time to regroup for round 2.

    And if 80% of the North Korean Army is gone, then Tiny Tim is reduced a city state with his praetorian guard divisions. The families of those he fed to the dogs will be looking for blood as did Saddam's enemies. I also remind you that the Taliban's Omar's enemies picked over his bones.

    I also see a ground incursion further north by the USMC to secure the missile launch sites. The strategic imperatives are obvious to those looking at the military options.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    TH, NK is extremeley improvised. The moment the first bomb falls, NKs would rush to the border to cross-over for life and food. It's not an islamic state nor are guns available for all.
    A military axiom. Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    I saw that video in Youtube, and it is completely opposite of what the Russian article presents. NKs are not mindless zombies. There will be a civil war only if the Chinese and the Russians decide to join the party. How US manages that would be interesting to see.
    There will be civil war regardless of Chinese or Russian involvement. Tiny Kim fed people to the dogs. Their families will be out for blood.

    However, Gentlemen, I submit that the war's aftermath is a problem for Seoul to solve, not the rest of us. Seoul would have to occupy North Korea, not the US military. Seoul would have to pay for unification, not the US Treasury. Korean problems are for Koreans to solve.

  3. #138
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,828
    Sir,

    In the event of an armed conflict between NK and SK+US, what do you think are the chances of a Chinese armored incursion across the Yalu to secure nuclear sites closest to the Chinese border?

    This seems to me a limited and logical step to preclude American bombing of those particular sites and the potential release of radiation into northern China that could result.

    Further it would seem to be a well defined mission of limited extent that could be fought in line with PLA's limited war under modern conditions doctrine we were discussing so much on CDF many years ago.

    On the other hand, this would still require a large commitment of forces across a broad front and deconfliction with US forces.

    Name:  north-korea-nuclear-sites.png
Views: 213
Size:  553.2 KB
    Last edited by citanon; 10 Sep 17, at 06:56.

  4. #139
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Posts
    2,664
    Nice to see you Colonel.

    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    The point I was trying to make is that fanaticism ain't going to win them their war.

    However, I submit that the war's aftermath ain't our problem. It's Seoul's problem. If war starts, Seoul is going to take the DMZ. That's a given. If Tiny Kim is to survive, then at least 50% of his army must survive the onslaught, enough for him to maintain order in the north. Frankly, I cannot see how that could happen. Seoul must hit hard, hit fast, and keep on hitting until the threat to Seoul is gone and that means not allowing the NKs time to regroup for round 2.

    And if 80% of the North Korean Army is gone, then Tiny Tim is reduced a city state with his praetorian guard divisions. The families of those he fed to the dogs will be looking for blood as did Saddam's enemies. I also remind you that the Taliban's Omar's enemies picked over his bones.

    I also see a ground incursion further north by the USMC to secure the missile launch sites. The strategic imperatives are obvious to those looking at the military options.
    Are you saying that the option of using military force rests with SKorea and that US should get involved only to secure the missile launch sites? No tomahawks flying?

    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    A military axiom. Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst.

    There will be civil war regardless of Chinese or Russian involvement. Tiny Kim fed people to the dogs. Their families will be out for blood.
    I was thinking different. By civil war, I thought TH meant what happened in Afghanistan post Soviet withdrawal, warlords killing and weakening each other to consolidate power.

    What you say is true. From a strategic viewpoint, is that a good thing or a bad thing? Will China and Russian not support some among those and try to install a proxy. I think the SKorean army should get inside NKorea as fast as it can so as to neutralise any Chinese/Russian moves.

    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    However, Gentlemen, I submit that the war's aftermath is a problem for Seoul to solve, not the rest of us. Seoul would have to occupy North Korea, not the US military. Seoul would have to pay for unification, not the US Treasury. Korean problems are for Koreans to solve.
    Absolutely.

    Sir, why did US let Pak and India go nuclear?

  5. #140
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,651
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    .
    However, Gentlemen, I submit that the war's aftermath is a problem for Seoul to solve, not the rest of us. Seoul would have to occupy North Korea, not the US military. Seoul would have to pay for unification, not the US Treasury. Korean problems are for Koreans to solve.
    Germany, 1918.
    Iraq, 1991.
    Iraq, 2011.

    I'm the first to admit I'm no solider, but post-war is a job for politicians and economists.
    Screwing up post-Kim Korea, by design or neglect, is a very bad idea.
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  6. #141
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    761
    Quote Originally Posted by citanon View Post
    In the event of an armed conflict between NK and SK+US, what do you think are the chances of a Chinese armored incursion across the Yalu to secure nuclear sites closest to the Chinese border?
    It would have to be co-ordinated or else be targetted by American bombs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Are you saying that the option of using military force rests with SKorea and that US should get involved only to secure the missile launch sites? No tomahawks flying?
    The US is involved from the start. Seoul lacks the experience and the finetuning of a war hardened US military.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    I was thinking different. By civil war, I thought TH meant what happened in Afghanistan post Soviet withdrawal, warlords killing and weakening each other to consolidate power.
    I think you should study North Korea more before commenting on civil war prospects. Warlords have military force under their command. What do you think Colonels and Majors are?

    Tiny Kim has been feeding Colonels and Majors to the dogs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    What you say is true. From a strategic viewpoint, is that a good thing or a bad thing? Will China and Russian not support some among those and try to install a proxy. I think the SKorean army should get inside NKorea as fast as it can so as to neutralise any Chinese/Russian moves.
    The Chinese and the Russians will be involved. If nothing else but to secure their borders against fleeing North Korean soldiers resorting to criminal acts to survive. There's nothing the US or Seoul can do to stop them nor would they want to. Anything to secure their confidence and future help would be a blessing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Absolutely.

    Sir, why did US let Pak and India go nuclear?
    Not revelent to this thread but India was under Moscow's protection and Pakistan was under Beijing's.

    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    Germany, 1918.
    Iraq, 1991.
    Iraq, 2011.
    I will do better. There has not been one post war occupation that did not require further military action to subdue uprisings.

    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    I'm the first to admit I'm no solider, but post-war is a job for politicians and economists.
    Screwing up post-Kim Korea, by design or neglect, is a very bad idea.
    Post-Kim Korea will be screwed up no matter what you do. But there are obvious mistakes to avoid. It is alot easire to replace one Korean rule with another Korean rule than to replace it with an American rule.

  7. #142

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    10,828
    DOR,

    "...but post-war is a job for politicians and economists..."

    Wouldn't that be nice but, sadly, politicians are even more narrowly short-sighted and self-centered. Want it done right then it'll require statesman-level determination, vision and prestige.

    Think Woodrow Wilson or George Marshall.

    Nothing of the sort readily available these days.

    OoE,

    Colonel, welcome back. It's good to again read your words.

    "...There has not been one post war occupation that did not require further military action to subdue uprisings..."

    Can't recall any civil disturbance issues in Japan nor W. Germany. Rumors of Nazis gathering in remote, forested beer halls -"Were-wolves" was never borne-out, thus complete B.S.

    Oh! I haven't voted nor is it possible. I'm split equally between strategic ignorance and blowing the holy shit right out of tiny Kim. All in or all out until he begins slingin' nukes at every(any)body else.
    Last edited by S2; 11 Sep 17, at 06:07.
    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

  8. #143
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    761
    Quote Originally Posted by S2 View Post
    Colonel, welcome back. It's good to again read your words.
    Hi Steve,

    "...There has not been one post war occupation that did not require further military action to subdue uprisings..."

    Quote Originally Posted by S2 View Post
    Can't recall any civil disturbance issues in Japan nor W. Germany. Rumors of Nazis gathering in remote, forested beer halls -"Were-wolves" was never borne-out, thus complete B.S.
    British forceful ethnic cleansing of eastern German provinces whose territory was being handed over to Poland. The Czechs did the same in the Sudetenland.

    Die hard Japanese soldiers continued their fights well into the 21st Century, especially in Burma where they became warlords in command of the drug trade.

  9. #144

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    10,828
    "...British forceful ethnic cleansing of eastern German provinces whose territory was being handed over to Poland. The Czechs did the same in the Sudetenland."

    Colonel,

    How in the hell were the Brits in a position to forcefully ethnically cleanse ANY eastern German province/state? That'd been the complete domain/responsibility of the Soviet Union. Further, if so, how would that be mistaken for an "uprising"?

    "Die hard Japanese soldiers continued their fights well into the 21st Century, especially in Burma where they became warlords in command of the drug trade."

    Their existence on remote Pacific islands would have been more akin to ship-wrecked pirates. Their existence as drug-lords in Burma is also new to me but would be dwarfed by Kuomintang drug warlords also living a life in remote exile. In any case, again, nothing remotely suggesting uprising on the home islands and nothing sufficiently worrisome to the world or within the meagre capacity of Burma to address.
    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

  10. #145
    Banned Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,501
    The man in the high castle is worth a try too. Total horseshit as well but....hey who'd notice!!

  11. #146
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,651
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post

    There has not been one post war occupation that did not require further military action to subdue uprisings..

    1915-34: Haiti
    1916-24: Dominican Republic
    1945-49: Germany
    1945-55: Austria
    1945-52: Japan
    1945-49: Korea (being invaded doesn’t count as a failure of the occupation)

    I don’t know if it qualifies, but the post-Civil War South was divided into occupation zones …
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  12. #147
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    761
    Quote Originally Posted by S2 View Post
    Colonel,

    How in the hell were the Brits in a position to forcefully ethnically cleanse ANY eastern German province/state? That'd been the complete domain/responsibility of the Soviet Union. Further, if so, how would that be mistaken for an "uprising"?
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rm-dou...b_1625437.html

    German people refusing to leave thier homes and violently evicted.

    Quote Originally Posted by S2 View Post
    Their existence on remote Pacific islands would have been more akin to ship-wrecked pirates. Their existence as drug-lords in Burma is also new to me but would be dwarfed by Kuomintang drug warlords also living a life in remote exile. In any case, again, nothing remotely suggesting uprising on the home islands and nothing sufficiently worrisome to the world or within the meagre capacity of Burma to address.
    At the time, they were a British problem.

    Just because you isolated specific members of the alliance that did not see any action does not eliminate the fact that violent military force was further required to impose the victor's will onto the defeated population.


    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    1915-34: Haiti
    1916-24: Dominican Republic
    1945-49: Germany
    1945-55: Austria
    1945-52: Japan
    1945-49: Korea (being invaded doesn’t count as a failure of the occupation)

    I don’t know if it qualifies, but the post-Civil War South was divided into occupation zones …
    The traditional term is bandits. All your examples are rifed with banditry.

  13. #148
    Global Moderator Defense Professional JAD_333's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 07
    Location
    Corpus Christi, Texas
    Posts
    11,214
    Colonel, glad to see you back. Sorry to hear the bad days outnumber the good.


    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post

    The Chinese and the Russians will be involved. If nothing else but to secure their borders against fleeing North Korean soldiers resorting to criminal acts to survive. There's nothing the US or Seoul can do to stop them nor would they want to. Anything to secure their confidence and future help would be a blessing.

    Post-Kim Korea will be screwed up no matter what you do. But there are obvious mistakes to avoid. It is alot easire to replace one Korean rule with another Korean rule than to replace it with an American rule.

    All true, provided China doesn't take a more proactive role in controlling NK. Under the radar betting is that it will.

    China certainly has a strong incentive to do so. For one thing, if it fails to show leadership in its sphere of interest, it will be seen as weak by its neighbors.

    China has the means to destroy the NK economy, such as it is. It is only a matter of summoning the will to do so. The alternative is unpalatable.


    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.3c32b0f8effe
    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

  14. #149
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    6,885
    ^^Great op-ed by ignatius

    Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has often been the silent man in the Trump foreign policy team. But out of the spotlight, he appears to be crafting a broad strategy aimed at working with China to resolve the North Korea crisis and with Russia to stabilize Syria and Ukraine.

    The Tillerson approach focuses on personal diplomacy, in direct contacts with Chinese and Russian leaders, and through private channels to North Korea.
    Suspect a similar us china understanding is in place to handle the Paks as well

    His core strategic assumption is that if the United States can subtly manage its relations with Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin — and allow those leaders to take credit for successes — complex regional problems can be solved effectively.
    So un trump like its funny. but yeah who wouldn't want to work with this guy


    The big idea driving Tillerson’s China policy is that the fundamentals of the relationship have changed as China has grown more powerful and assertive. The message to Beijing is that Xi’s actions in defusing the North Korea crisis will shape U.S.-China relations for the next half-century.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 12 Sep 17, at 00:54.

  15. #150
    Global Moderator Defense Professional JAD_333's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 07
    Location
    Corpus Christi, Texas
    Posts
    11,214
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post

    Suspect a similar us china understanding is in place to handle the Paks as well
    Could well be. Appearances aside, Tillerson isn't sitting on its hands.
    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 36 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 36 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Drone Dilemma
    By Merlin in forum Operation Enduring Freedom and Af-Pak
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 14 Dec 09,, 23:02
  2. S. Korean perception of N. Korean nuclear program
    By Ironduke in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 13 Jan 09,, 00:36
  3. the dreadful dilemma....
    By dave angel in forum The Field Mess
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05 Sep 07,, 14:44
  4. The Second Korean War and China's dilemma...
    By YellowFever in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 24 Oct 06,, 05:41
  5. Dilemma of Confronting Fundamentalism
    By Ray in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 30 Sep 05,, 21:34

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •